[2024] KEHC 12219 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed within the statutory period and without unreasonable delay. However, the applicant failed to substantiate the claim of substantial loss, as mere execution of a judgment is not sufficient. The court held that security for due performance must be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12219 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Gladys Jeruto Korir; Respondent: Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited; Respondent: Gilbert Rono
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E211 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed subject to conditions.
- Judges
- JN Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Appeal Timelines
- 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
Gladys Jeruto Korir
Appellant
Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited
Respondent
Gilbert Rono
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss to warrant stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
- 3 What security is appropriate for due performance of the decree pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed within the statutory period and without unreasonable delay. However, the applicant failed to substantiate the claim of substantial loss, as mere execution of a judgment is not sufficient. The court held that security for due performance must be adequate and that depositing the logbook was insufficient. Instead, the applicant was ordered to deposit Kshs. 350,000 in a joint interest-earning account as security. The court balanced the interests of both parties by allowing the stay of execution on these terms, ensuring the respondent's interests are protected while preserving the subject matter of the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution pending appeal allowed subject to conditions.
Orders
- Applicant to deposit Kshs. 350,000 in an interest earning account in joint names of both advocates within 30 days; in default, stay lapses automatically.
- Subject motor vehicle registration No. KCR 759G to remain in possession of the applicant and not to be sold or parted with during the pendency of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
Korir v Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited & another (Civil Appeal E211 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 12219 (KLR) (Civ) (15 October 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 12219 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal E211 of 2024
JN Mulwa, J
October 15, 2024
Between
Gladys Jeruto Korir
Appellant
and
Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited
1st Respondent
Gilbert Rono
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. By an Application dated 21/03/2024 the Applicant sought orders of stay of execution of judgment in SCCOMM 4202 of 2023 delivered on 1/2/2024 pending hearing and determination of the application and Appeal filed therefrom, on grounds stated at its face and Supporting Affidavit sworn on even dates by the Applicant/Appellant.
2. The Application is further grounded on provisions of Order 50 Rule 6 and Order 41 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules underpinning enlargement of time.
3. The application is opposed by grounds of opposition dated 9/05/2024 filed by the 1st Respondent Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited.
4. The court has considered the parties pleadings, the impugned judgment and submissions.
5. It is the applicant’s contention that the decretal sum of Kshs. 342,837. 92 was awarded unjustly for reasons that the subject motor vehicle was purchased validly being the subject of the appeal that was reinstated to the 2nd Respondent and therefore should stay be granted, she would suffer substantial loss. No substantiation of the loss has been demonstrated.
6. The 1st Respondent’s case is that the delay for about one month to bring this instant application has not been explained.
7. The court has considered the parties pleadings, affidavits in support of the grounds of objection and submissions.The impugned judgment delivered on 1/02/2024. By the said judgment, the subject motor vehicle Registration No. KCR 749G was re-instated to the 2nd Respondent Gilbert Rono. In addition the trial court entered infavour of the 2nd Respondent ,Gilbert Rono, the claimant in the sum of Kshs. 342,837. 92/= in favour of the claimant against the 1st Respondent is Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited.
8. As at the date of this application (21/03/2024) the subject motor vehicle KCR 759G was in the possession of the Applicant Gladys Jeruto Korir. She seeks an order of status quo to be maintained pending hearing of the application interpartes, which interim order was granted by the court in the first instant.
9. It is noted that the Appeal herein by Memorandum of Appeal dated 12/02/2024 was filed within the statutory period as provided.
10. I am persuaded also that this application was filed without unreasonable delay as provided under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
11. On the matter of substantial loss being the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 the applicant has urged the court to grant stay orders citing several superior court decisions among them– Kenya Shell Ltd V Benjamin Karuda Kibiru & Others 1982 -88 ) IKAR 1018; James Wangalwa & Another v. Agnes Naliaka Cheseto [2012] eKLR for the proposition that evidence of substantial loss must be demonstrated and that lawful execution put in place does not translate to substantial loss. At the James Wangalwa case (supra) the court added that execution is a lawful process, hence the applicant must establish other factors which show that the execution will create a state of affairs that will irreparably affect or negate the very essential core of the application as the successful party in the Appeal.
12. Therefore an order of stay of execution pending appeal shall only be granted when the applicant has successfully persuaded the court that it will suffer substantial loss if the order is denied, including the nature of loss being demonstrated to the court.
13. The Applicant has possession of the subject motor vehicle. Depositing the logbook into court as security will not be sufficient security in the court's opinion as it cannot sufficiently secure and safeguard the Respondents interests in the physical the vehicle.Security must be one that should achieve due performance of the decree which at the end includes costs and interest on the judgment sum.
14. The judgment sum herein is Kshs. 342,837. 92 plus costs and interest at 15% pa. as stated in the decretal, until payment in full.
15. Upon consideration of both parties interests the following orders shall issue.
16. The application dated 21/03/2024 is allowed subject to:a.The Applicant depositing in an interest earning account in the joint names of both Advocates for the parties Kshs. 350,000/= within 30 days of this order. In default the stay shall lapse automatically.b.That the subject motor vehicle registration No. KCR 759G shall remain in possession of the Applicant Gladys Jerubo Korir with a further order that the said vehicle shall not be sold or part possession of the Applicant during the pendency of the appeal.c.That the Record of Appeal shall be filed and served within 60 days, with a mention for further directions on 21/01/2025. Orders accordingly.
DELIVERED DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024. JANET MULWAJUDGE