[2017] KEHC 9188 (KLR)
The court found that while the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay and the appellant expressed willingness to provide security, the appellant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted. The respondent provided credible evidence of financial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kenindia Assurance Company Limited; Respondent: Kling Development Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 54 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Substantial Loss, Money Decree, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Kenindia Assurance Company Limited
Appellant
Kling Development Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether substantial loss will result to the appellant if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the respondent is financially capable of refunding the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay and the appellant expressed willingness to provide security, the appellant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted. The respondent provided credible evidence of financial capability to refund the decretal sum in the event the appeal succeeded, including a trial balance showing sufficient resources. The court held that the threat of execution alone does not constitute substantial loss and, therefore, the appellant did not meet the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 17th February, 2017 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI
MILIMANI CIVIL DIVISION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2017
KENINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED................................... APPELLANT
VERSUS
KLING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED.....................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Appellant has moved this Court by way of a Notice of Motion dated 17th February, 2017 under Order 42 Rule 6 (2), of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and section 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following orders: -
(a) That there be a temporary stay of execution of the decree issued in Milimani CMCC No. 3072 of 2012 pending the hearing and determination of this application.
(b) That there be a stay of execution of the decree issued in Milimani CMCC No. 3072 of 2012 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal; and
(c) The costs of this application be provided for.
2. The Motion is premised on the grounds on the body of the application and the Supporting and Further Affidavits of SIMON KIOKO MWANZIA the Legal Officer of the Appellant. The Application is opposed by the Respondent via a Replying Affidavit of BHIMJI RAMJI HALAI, a director of the Respondent.
3. The application raises a number of issues which can only be determined during hearing of the appeal but not at this stage. These include the grounds stated on the application that the lower court erred in entering the judgment and that the Respondent never proved her case on a balance of probability. The fact that the Respondent has threatened to execute the decree is not a sufficient ground to warrant a stay of execution. This position was stated in Timsales Limited Vs. Hiram Gichohi Mwangi, Civil Appeal Number 94 of 2008 (2013) where the court stated that the mere fact that the process of execution has commenced or is likely to commence does not amount to substantial loss for the reason that execution is a legal process and that the Appellant must establish other factors.
4. The conditions for granting an order of stay of execution are outlined in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The said factors were also reiterated by Ringera J ( as he then was) in Global Tours & Travels Limited winding up cause No. 43 of 2000. These are;
(a) That the application has been made without unreasonable delay;
(b) That security for costs has been given; and
(c) That substantial loss may result to the Applicant unless the order for stay is made.
5. The instant application as well as the Memorandum of Appeal were filed 30 days after the judgment being appealed against herein was delivered. Even though the application was not filed timeously, the same was made without unreasonable delay.
6. In the Supporting Affidavit, the Appellant states that they are ready and willing to furnish security and/or comply with any other Order as to security that the Court may deem fit to grant. The Appellant having satisfied those two requirements, I will proceed to consider the third requirement which is whether substantial loss may result to the Applicant unless the order for stay is made.
7. In the Application as well as the Affidavits, it is stated that if execution is allowed to proceed, the Appeal will be rendered nugatory. The Applicant also states that the Respondent is not well financially, and its business is not vibrant. On the other hand, the Respondent has on a balance of probability provided evidence to show that the company is financially capable of refunding the decretal amount in the event that the Appeal is successful. Attached to the Respondent’s Affidavit is a trial balance for the year ending 31st December, 2015. The decretal amount is Kshs. 493,143/= and a comparison of this amount with the Respondent’s trial balance will lead to a logical conclusion that the Respondents is capable of re-imbursing the decretal sum in case the appeal succeeds.
8. The Respondent has a money decree that he may wish to execute and has proven on a balance of probability that in case the appeal is successful, it is capable and willing to refund the decretal amount. For this reason, the application dated 17th February, 2017 is hereby dismissed.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of July, 2017
…………………
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………. for the Appellant
…………………………. for the Respondent