[2011] KEHC 1886 (KLR)
The court found that the detention of the motor vehicle had its genesis in criminal law, not civil law, and therefore the usual requirement for security for stay of execution did not arise. The applicant had not been heard in the lower court, and their appeal was yet to be determined. To preserve the subject matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 1886 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd; Respondent: Francis Mbogo Mburu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 478 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Ex Parte Orders, Release of Property, Criminal Investigation, Security for Stay
- 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
Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
Appellant
Francis Mbogo Mburu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal where the subject property is under criminal investigation.
- 2 Whether the applicant was denied a hearing in the lower court and is entitled to an inter partes hearing.
- 3 Whether security for stay is necessary in a matter with criminal law genesis.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the detention of the motor vehicle had its genesis in criminal law, not civil law, and therefore the usual requirement for security for stay of execution did not arise. The applicant had not been heard in the lower court, and their appeal was yet to be determined. To preserve the subject matter and ensure fairness, the court granted a stay of execution of the lower court's orders pending the hearing of the appeal. The court relied on the submissions of the parties, as the lower court file was not before it, and determined that the interests of justice required maintaining the status quo until the appeal was heard inter partes.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the trial court's orders of 28 October 2010 pending appeal is granted.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO.478 OF 2010
KENYA POWER & LIGHTING CO. LTD...............................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
FRANCIS MBOGO MBURU..............................................................................RESPONDENT
(Being an appeal from the Ruling of the Principle Magistrate Hon. S. A. Okato, the Principle Magistrate at Milimani Commercial Courts
dated 28th October 2010 in CMCC No.6445 of 2010)
RULING
(Stay of execution of orders of court Notice of Motion 9 November 2010)
I.INTRODUCTION
1. M/S Kenya Power and Lighting Co. Ltd, the applicant/ appellant/Original Defendant herein, were sued in the subordinate courts for wrongful detention of a motor vehicle registration KAT 158A Toyota Corolla Station Wagon.
2. This motor vehicle is alleged to be owed by Francis Mbogo Mburu, the Respondent/Original Plaintiff herein.
3. When the matter came before the Hon. Magistrate, it is alleged that the applicant were not properly on record. The matter was heard exparte and orders made that the said motor vehicle be released.
4. The applicant/appellant file appeal to this High Court on 9 November 2010. They filed an application for stay of execution of the orders of the trial magistrate dated the 28 October 2010 pending the hearing of the appeal. All they sought in their appeal is to either be allowed to be heard in an interparte hearing or to dismiss the respondent’s application dated 13 October 2010.
5. As to the orders to have the motor vehicle released they opposed this as the vehicle was under criminal investigations.
6. The Respondent had argued that the applicant/appellant failed to offer any security.
III.OPINION
7. The Lower Court file is not before this court. I rely on the submissions made by the parties from the bar.
8. From the genesis of this matter, the detention of the motor vehicle was so done under criminal circumstance. The respondent may be right in coming to court to exercise his Constitutional right and have his alleged property released to him. The issue before the subordinate court is whether the release of the motor vehicle be done before the investigation are complete.
9. The applicant alleges that they had not been heard. They appeal to this court, which is yet to be determined to be allowed to be heard interparte or alternative, the said orders be dismissed. Pending this hearing of the appeal, the orders of the trial magistrate dated 28th October 2010 should be stayed.
10. I would agree with that application. The reasons being that the matter has its genesis in Criminal Law and not in Civil Law. The issue therefore of security would not normally arise.
11. The application for stay of execution of the trial court’s orders of 28 October 2010 pending appeal be and is hereby allowed. There be costs to the applicant.
RULING DATED THIS 18 DAY OF MAY 2011 AT NAIROBI
M. A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Advocates:
i.C. M. Kibathi instructed by M/s Wairagu & Wairagu & Co. Advocates for the Appellant
ii.Z. M. Kimani instructed by M/s Kimani Kahete & Co. Advocates for the Respondent