[2015] KEHC 3962 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 3962 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had not complied with the previous order requiring deposit of Kshs. 2,000,000 as security for stay of execution and had not provided persuasive grounds or evidence to justify varying or substituting the order. The application was filed over two weeks after the lapse of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 3962 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Maina Thiongo; Respondent: John Karuntimi Kiambati
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 13 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Costs Appeals Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Maina Thiongo

Appellant

John Karuntimi Kiambati

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the court should substitute the order to deposit Kshs. 2,000,000 with an unconditional stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant a stay of execution without compliance with the security condition.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would be prejudiced by the grant of stay without deposit of security.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not complied with the previous order requiring deposit of Kshs. 2,000,000 as security for stay of execution and had not provided persuasive grounds or evidence to justify varying or substituting the order. The application was filed over two weeks after the lapse of the stipulated period for compliance, and the supporting affidavit and grounds did not demonstrate sufficient cause. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application, holding that the interests of justice did not warrant granting the orders sought in the absence of compliance with the security condition.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 12th May, 2015 is dismissed with no order as to costs.