[2013] KEHC 3262 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 3262 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish substantial loss as required under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a) and as interpreted in Daniel Chebutul Rotich v Emirates Airlines. However, considering the willingness of both parties to provide and accept security, and in the interest of balancing the competing interests of the parties, the court exercised its discretion under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) to grant a stay of execution on condition that the applicant furnishes security for the due performance of the decree. The security must be provided within 30 days, either as a bank or insurance bond or by depositing the decretal amount in a joint interest-earning account. Failure to comply would...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 3262 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd; Defendant: Julius Ole Sunkuli; Defendant: Mohamed Yusuf Haji; Defendant: Bonaya Godana; Defendant: Kenya African National Union
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Case Number
Civil Case 14 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
conditional stay of execution granted
Judges
JB Havelock
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Decree, Substantial Loss, Appeals Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Decree Substantial Loss Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd

Plaintiff

Julius Ole Sunkuli

Defendant

Mohamed Yusuf Haji

Defendant

Bonaya Godana

Defendant

Kenya African National Union

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss as required for grant of stay of execution.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should furnish security for the due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish substantial loss as required under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a) and as interpreted in Daniel Chebutul Rotich v Emirates Airlines. However, considering the willingness of both parties to provide and accept security, and in the interest of balancing the competing interests of the parties, the court exercised its discretion under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) to grant a stay of execution on condition that the applicant furnishes security for the due performance of the decree. The security must be provided within 30 days, either as a bank or insurance bond or by depositing the decretal amount in a joint interest-earning account. Failure to comply would...

Court Disposition

conditional stay of execution granted

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the judgment is granted on condition that the applicant furnishes security within 30 days.
  • Security to be provided either as a bank or insurance bond for Kshs. 483,217,081 or by depositing the decretal amount in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the parties' advocates.