[2010] KEHC 3639 (KLR)
The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the legal burden of demonstrating substantial loss or providing evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. Mere allegations without disclosure of the decretal sum or supporting evidence are insufficient....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3639 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kiptagich Tea Estates Ltd; Respondent: John Kimitei Koros
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 49 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Burden of Proof, Security for Decree
- 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
Kiptagich Tea Estates Ltd
Appellant
John Kimitei Koros
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss to warrant a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has discharged the legal burden to show the respondent cannot refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds.
- 3 Whether the applicant can seek a stay in the High Court after a similar application in the lower court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the legal burden of demonstrating substantial loss or providing evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. Mere allegations without disclosure of the decretal sum or supporting evidence are insufficient. Although other conditions for granting a stay, such as security and promptness, were met, the failure to establish substantial loss was fatal to the application. The court further clarified that there is no procedural bar to seeking a stay in the High Court after a similar application in the lower court, but the substantive requirements must still be satisfied.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Civil Appeal 49 of 2009
KIPTAGICH TEA ESTATES LTD……………...APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOHN KIMITEI KOROS…………..…....……...RESPONDENT
RULING
This is an application for stay of execution of the decree/judgment in Molo RMCC No.313 of 2003 dated 17th February, 2009 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein.
It is the applicant’s contention that being aggrieved by the judgment in question, it has filed the appeal herein to challenge the same. That the applicant in apprehensive that the appeal may be rendered nugatory unless the order of stay is granted; that the applicant may also suffer substantial loss as the respondent does not have any known assets; that a similar application for stay was granted by the lower court which ordered the applicant to deposit half ( ½ ) of the decretal sum into court and pay over the other half (½) to the respondent within thirty (30) days from 26th May, 2009; that the applicant has not complied with that order out of the fear that should the appeal succeed the respondent may not have the means to restitute, hence this application.
The respondent in his reply has deposed that the lower court having granted a similar application on fair terms, the applicant cannot move to this court with a similar application without showing that the terms imposed by the lower court are unfair. I have considered the above arguments as well as the authorities cited in support of the applicant’s application.
It is settled on the basis of those authorities that the jurisdiction of this court under Order 41 rule 4(1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules in matters of stay of proceedings and execution is distinct from that of the Court of Appeal exercised under rule 5(2) (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. That distinction was discussed in the case of Halai & Another Vs. Thornton & Turpin (1963) Ltd. (1990) KLR 365.
Although the consideration under the two jurisdictions are different, both jurisdictions are concerned with preventing substantial loss. See Kenya Shell Ltd. Vs. Benjamin Karuga & Ruth Wairimu Karuga (1986) LKR 410.
The applicant herein is apprehensive that if the decretal sum was to be paid over the respondent (even if only half (½) of it), the latter would not be in a position to refund it should the appeal succeed. The legal burden remains upon the applicant to demonstrate this. It is only after doing so that the evidential burden would shift to the respondent to show that he would be capable to refund the decretal sum if it is paid over to him and the appeal wereto succeed. Both from the Memorandum of Appeal and this application there is no mention at all of the decretal sum.
It is not enough to merely allege that the respondent will not be able to restitute some undisclosed figure. The applicant has failed in discharging its legal burden and it will serve no purpose to require the respondent to attempt to rebut it.
Although the other conditions for the grant of stay order have been met eg. security and the application being brought without undue delay, the application must fail for failure to demonstrate substantial loss.
Finally there is no bar in Order 41 rule 4 (1) aforesaid for an applicant whose application has been allowed or rejected by the court appealed from to apply to the court appealed to.
For what I have stated earlier on, this application is dismissed with costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nakuru this 18th day of January, 2010.
W. OUKO
JUDGE