[2013] KEHC 4887 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant's application for review lacked merit because the issue of the form of security—whether a cash deposit or a bank guarantee—should have been raised at the time the original application for stay of execution was heard. The defendant either did raise the issue and it was considered,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 4887 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Allan Okemwa; Defendant: Hosea Kiplagat
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1413 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Conditional Stay Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Review of Court Orders, Security for Decretal Sum
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Allan Okemwa
Plaintiff
Hosea Kiplagat
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review of Conditional Stay Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review its previous order requiring the defendant to deposit KShs 8,000,000 as security and instead allow a bank guarantee.
- 2 Whether the amount ordered as security was inordinately high and should be reduced or substituted with alternative security.
- 3 Whether the application for review was brought with inordinate delay and constituted an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant's application for review lacked merit because the issue of the form of security—whether a cash deposit or a bank guarantee—should have been raised at the time the original application for stay of execution was heard. The defendant either did raise the issue and it was considered, or failed to raise it and cannot now seek to re-litigate it at the review stage. The court emphasized that review is not a mechanism for parties to revisit arguments or issues that could have been addressed in the original proceedings. There was no demonstration of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason to warrant review. The...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The defendant's application for review is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Civil Case 1413 of 2005 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
JOHN ALLAN OKEMWA....................…………..…..…….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HOSEA KIPLAGAT............................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The Defendant seeks by notice of motion dated 28th November 2012 review of the order of Odunga, J delivered on 17th October 2012. By that order the court granted a conditional stay of execution pending the hearing of an appeal lodged by the applicant with a requirement that the Defendant deposit KShs 8,000,000/00 in a joint interest-earning account in the names of advocates for the parties. This was to be done within 45 days from the date of the ruling, in default of which the order of stay would be vacated. Review is sought so that instead of making a deposit of Kshs. 8,000,000/00 the defendant will instead provide a bank guarantee as security within a time to be directed by the court.
2. The application is stated to be brought under Article 159(2)(d)of theConstitution, sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21andOrder 45of theCivil Procedure Rules.
3. The application is premised upon the grounds -
i.That the amount of KShs 8,000,000/00 is inordinately high as the decretal sum was on account of mesneprofits, which figure was reached without proper assessment of the profits so claimed.
ii.That the amount of KShs 8,000,000/00 is inordinately high and ought to be reduced or alternative security be ordered at the court's discretion within a reasonable time as the court may direct.
There is a supporting affidavit sworn by the Defendant.
4. The Plaintiff has opposed the application as set out in his grounds of opposition dated 14th January 2013. Those grounds include -
i.That the application has been brought with inordinate delay.
ii.That the application is brought in bad faith, is vexatious and an abuse of the court process.
iii.That the Defendant has not exhibited any evidence of his inability to raise the sum of KShs. 8,000,000/00.
iv.That there are no grounds upon which to grant the review sought.
5. I have considered the material now before the court and the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
6. The issue of the kind of security that ought to have been ordered must have been raised, or ought to have been raised, before Odunga J. when the application for stay of execution was canvassed. The Defendant cannot now seek to litigate that issue at this stage. In ordering security by way of deposit of the decretal sum in an interest earning account, Odunga J must have considered the alternative forms of security as suggested by the learned counsels appearing before him. If no alternative forms of security were suggested, they ought to have been suggested, and the issue simply cannot be raised at this late stage.
7. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the application at hand and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013