[2004] KEHC 109 (KLR)
The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as any sums paid under the disputed rates could be refunded if the appeal succeeded. The court also held that substantial loss, a mandatory requirement under Order XLI Rule 4 for the grant of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 109 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Gichohi Mukuha & 122 Others; Respondent: Municipal Council of Naivasha
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 7 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Appeal Procedure, Refund of Fees
- 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
Joseph Gichohi Mukuha & 122 Others
Appellant
Municipal Council of Naivasha
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants have demonstrated that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- 2 Whether substantial loss has been shown by the appellants as required under Order XLI Rule 4 for stay of execution pending appeal.
- 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the application for stay affects the grant of the orders sought.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as any sums paid under the disputed rates could be refunded if the appeal succeeded. The court also held that substantial loss, a mandatory requirement under Order XLI Rule 4 for the grant of stay, had not been shown by the appellants. Furthermore, the court noted the significant delay in prosecuting the application for stay, with no satisfactory explanation provided. The cumulative effect of these findings led the court to dismiss the application for stay of execution and preservation of the status quo.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 14/1/2002 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Appeal 7 of 2002
JOSEPH GICHOHI MUKUHA & 122 OTHERS....................................................................APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NAIVASHA……......................................................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The appellants filed an application dated 14/1/2002 seeking to stay the judgment and execution of the decree dated 21/12/2001. They also prayed that this court be pleased to set aside the order of the trial magistrate dated 21/12/2001 rejecting an application for stay of execution of the judgment and preservation of the status quo. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Joseph Mukuha Gichohi.
Judgment in Naivasha PMCCC No. 194 of 2001 was delivered on 21/12/2001 and thereafter the appellants filed an appeal to this court. They claim that the respondent is now demanding exorbitant and outrageous rates and business licence fees from them and some appellants have been taken to court and charged on the basis of the outrageous charges. They fear that their appeal will be rendered nugatory if the respondent continues to demand the high rates and fees.
Mr. Kahiga for the applicant cited several authorities in support of the application.
In considering this application, I must firstly state that I am not persuaded that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the order for stay is not granted. The matter related to increase in fees and rates by the respondent and in my view, if the appeal succeeds and it is found that the higher charges were unlawful, the respondent can refund the sums that it may have been charging unlawfully.
Secondly, substantial loss has not been shown on the part of the applicants. The applicants suit having been dismissed, the respondent is entitled to charge the increased fees and rates and I do not see how payment of the new charges can amount to substantial loss which is a mandatory prerequisite under Order XLI Rule 4 in an application for stay of execution pending appeal.
Thirdly, even though the application for stay of execution was filed within a period of less than 30 days from the date of the judgment now being appealed against, the application was heard more than two and a half years later. There is no good reason as to why the same could not be set down for hearing earlier.
If the respondent started charging the enhanced fees and rates nearly three years ago, it will not make any sense to make an order reinstating the status quo ante as I was urged to by our Kahiga in his submissions.
The appellants should instead take steps to list down the appeal for hearing as soon as possible.
The application dated 14/1/2002 is hereby dismissed with costs.
DATED at Nakuru this 27th day of October, 2004.
DANIEL MUSINGA
AG. JUDGE
27/9/2004