[2002] KEHC 881 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 881 (KLR)

The court found that the affidavit in support of the application for stay of execution was incompetent, as counsel could not swear to facts regarding the applicant's alleged substantial loss. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate, either in the affidavit or submissions, how substantial loss would be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KEHC 881 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: John Tendener & Another; Respondent: Stephen Munga Muthira
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 227 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Money Decree, Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Money Decree Affidavit Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Tendener & Another

Appellant

Stephen Munga Muthira

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit in support of the application for stay of execution was competent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances exist to warrant stay of execution of a money decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the affidavit in support of the application for stay of execution was incompetent, as counsel could not swear to facts regarding the applicant's alleged substantial loss. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate, either in the affidavit or submissions, how substantial loss would be suffered if the stay was not granted, or that the decretal amount would be irrecoverable from the respondent should the appeal succeed. In the absence of special circumstances, the court held that the respondent should not be denied the enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment, and therefore dismissed the application for stay of execution.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.