[2019] KEHC 5366 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 5366 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had filed the appeal and the application for stay of execution without undue delay, and that the judgment sum was substantial. The applicant expressed willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree. Although the respondent claimed to have means to refund the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 5366 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Kyalo Musyoki; Respondent: Bibiana Mbulwa & Nicholas Muendo Kithome (Suing as the Administrators of Estate of Kisingu Ngului (Deceased)); Respondent: Makindu Motors Limited; Respondent: Joshua Makau Wambua
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 21 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution pending appeal granted on conditions.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Appeal Timeliness
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Costs Appeal Timeliness

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kyalo Musyoki

Appellant

Bibiana Mbulwa & Nicholas Muendo Kithome (Suing as the Administrators of Estate of Kisingu Ngului (Deceased))

Respondent

Makindu Motors Limited

Respondent

Joshua Makau Wambua

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without undue delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had filed the appeal and the application for stay of execution without undue delay, and that the judgment sum was substantial. The applicant expressed willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree. Although the respondent claimed to have means to refund the decretal sum, the court was not satisfied that this was sufficiently demonstrated. The court therefore exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution, subject to the applicant paying part of the decretal sum and securing the balance by bank guarantee within a specified period. Failure to comply would result in automatic vacation of the stay order.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution pending appeal granted on conditions.

Orders

  • The applicant to pay Kshs. 300,000 to the respondent through her advocate within 30 days.
  • The balance of the judgment sum to be secured through a bank guarantee within 30 days.