[2017] KEHC 7959 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution pending appeal was not res judicata because the insurance company was not a party to the earlier suit or the application for leave to appeal out of time. The court held that both the original damages suit and the declaratory suit arose from the same cause of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 7959 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: T K (Minor suing through father and next friend L K K); Plaintiff: N M also known as M M; Plaintiff: S K; Defendant: Directline Assurance Co. Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 21, 22 & 23 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Declaratory Judgment, Res Judicata, Appeals Out of Time
- 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
T K (Minor suing through father and next friend L K K)
Plaintiff
N M also known as M M
Plaintiff
S K
Plaintiff
Directline Assurance Co. Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal is res judicata.
- 2 Whether the decretal sum should be deposited in a joint account pending appeal.
- 3 Whether the insurance company can be executed against following the declaratory judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution pending appeal was not res judicata because the insurance company was not a party to the earlier suit or the application for leave to appeal out of time. The court held that both the original damages suit and the declaratory suit arose from the same cause of action—the road traffic accident of 30th April, 2012—but the declaratory suit was against the insurer, not the insured. The court determined that the appropriate way to secure the respondents' interests pending appeal was to order the decretal sum to be deposited in a joint account of both counsels. This would ensure that the respondents would not suffer prejudice, as the...
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The decretal sum shall be deposited in a joint account of both counsels within thirty (30) days.
- The applicant shall file and serve the record of appeal within sixty (60) days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 21, 22 & 23 OF 2016
T K(Minor suing through father and next friend
L K K) ….…............................................... ST PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
N M Balso Known asM M ……......….... 2ND PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
S K ………………….................….....…….. 3RD PLAINTIFF/RESPNDENT
VERSUS
DIRECTLINE ASSURANCE CO. LTD ….…..… DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
The applications dated 13th April, 2016 seeks orders of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The applications are supported by the affidavit of Sandra Nyakweba. The respondents filed a replying affidavit in respect of each application sworn by Geoffrey Kilonzo Advocate. Parties agreed to determine the application by way of written submissions. Counsel for the applicants filed his submissions. Counsel for respondents relied on their replying affidavit.
The background to the applications is that the dispute arise from a road traffic accident which occurred on 30th April, 2012. The respondents filed civil cases before the subordinate court and were awarded damages respectively. An application for leave to appeal out of time was filed. This court allowed the applicant to file appeal out of time provided that the decretal sum is deposited in joint accounts of counsels for the parties herein.
The respondents filed declaratory suits against the insurance company and judgements were entered in their favour on 10th February, 2016. It is that judgement the applicant would like to stay pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
According to counsel for the respondents, the current applications have been overtaken by events and are res-judicata. When this court dealt with the issue of leave to appeal out of time, it did not stay the declaratory suits. The suits proceeded to final conclusion and judgement was entered in favour of the respondents.
It is clear that the cases involve the same cause of action. In the first set of cases where damages were granted by the trial court, the issue at hand was the accident which occurred on 30th April, 2012. Ordinarily, it is the insurance company which insured the accident vehicle that settles the decretal sum. Thus, both judgements emanate from the same cause of action and are supposed to be paid by the applicant herein – Directline Assurance Company Ltd. The amount to be deposited in the joint account is meant to satisfy the same victims of the accidents. In essence therefore, the two judgments of the subordinate court flow from the same source which is the accident of 30th April, 2012. There can be no issue of res-judicata as the insurance company was not a party to the earlier suit and subsequent application for leave to appeal out of time. Had execution been levied in the earlier suits, it would have been against the insured. Since the judgement has been entered in the declaratory suit, the respondents can execute against the insurance company. The current application is therefore not res-judicate.
I do order that the decretal sum be deposited in a joint account of both counsels within thirty (30) days hereof. The respondents will not suffer any prejudice. The amount awarded to them as damages will be in the joint account pending the determination of the appeal. The applicant is hereby ordered to ensure that the record of appeal is filed and served within sixty (60) days hereof.
In the end, the application dated 13th April, 2016 is granted as prayed. Costs shall follow the outcome of the main suit.
Dated and delivered in Malindi this 2nd day of February, 2017.
S.J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE