[2010] KEHC 3065 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's limited means, as evidenced in the lower court, justified the applicant's apprehension that recovery of the decretal sum would be difficult if paid out and the appeal succeeded. The applicant had already deposited the decretal amount as security. To balance the interests of both...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 3065 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Landmark Holdings Limited; Respondent: Peter Mwirotsi Shikutwa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 711 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Conditional stay of execution granted pending appeal.
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum, Substantial Loss, Balance of Convenience
- 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
Landmark Holdings Limited
Applicant
Peter Mwirotsi Shikutwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the security deposited is sufficient to protect the interests of both parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's limited means, as evidenced in the lower court, justified the applicant's apprehension that recovery of the decretal sum would be difficult if paid out and the appeal succeeded. The applicant had already deposited the decretal amount as security. To balance the interests of both parties, the court ordered a conditional stay of execution, requiring the security to be placed in a joint interest-earning account, timely filing of the record of appeal, and expeditious prosecution of the appeal. Failure to dispose of the appeal within 12 months would result in the automatic discharge of the stay unless extended by the court.
Court Disposition
Conditional stay of execution granted pending appeal.
Orders
- An order of stay of execution pending appeal is issued, subject to conditions.
- The amount of Kshs.416,000 deposited in court shall be released to the parties' advocates to be deposited in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the parties' advocates within 21 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Appeal 711 of 2009
LANDMARK HOLDINGS LIMITED………………....APPLICANT
VERSUS
PETER MWIROTSI SHIKUTWA…………………..RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant, Landmark Holdings Limited seeks an order for stay of execution of the decree issued against it pending the hearing and determination of an appeal, which it has filed against the judgment of the Resident Magistrate delivered on8th December, 2009 in CMCC No.13713 of 2006.
2. Pursuant to orders issued by the Hon. Rawal J. on22nd February, 2010, the applicant deposited a sum of Kshs.416,000/= into court as security. The applicant maintains that unless the order of stay is granted, the respondent is likely to proceed with execution and the applicant’s appeal will be rendered nugatory. Mrs. Onyango who appeared for the applicant urged the court to grant the orders sought contending that the respondent is a total stranger to the applicant. Mrs. Onyango maintains that it would be difficult to recover the decretal amount if paid to the respondent because the respondent in his evidence in the lower court stated that he was unemployed and had no means of paying for his hospital bills.
3. In response to the application, the respondent has sworn a replying affidavit in which he contends that the application is no more than an attempt to deny him the fruits of the judgment given in his favour. The respondent maintains that the appeal which has been filed is an afterthought and does not raise any arguable issues. The respondent contends that he is a small scale farmer cum business person and that he has in possession a huge parcel of ancestral land measuring 20 hectares in MumiasKenya. He therefore maintains that he will be in a possession to refund the decretal sum if that becomes necessary.
4. Mr. Mutua who appeared for the respondent maintains that the amount deposited in court as security was not accessible to the respondent. Relying on Civil Appeal No.186 of 2007, counsel maintained that the applicant had not established substantial loss.
5. I have given due consideration to this application. It is clear that the respondent’s evidence in the lower court shows that his means are limited. In the circumstances, the applicant’s apprehension that it may not be able to recover the decretal sum if paid to the respondent is justified. The applicant having deposited the decretal amount as security, I will strike a balance in the interest of both parties by making orders as follows:
6. An order of stay of execution pending appeal shall issue on the following conditions:
(i) The amount of Kshs.416,000/= deposited in court by the applicant shall be released to the parties’ advocates to be deposited into an interest earning account with a reputable financial institution in the joint names of the parties’ advocates within 21 days from the date hereof.
(ii) The applicant shall file and serve a record of appeal within 90 days from the date hereof.
(iii) The applicant shall take all necessary action to facilitate the speedy disposal of this appeal. In the event that the appeal is not disposed off within 12 months from the date hereof, the order for stay of execution pending appeal shall stand discharged unless otherwise extended by the court.
(iv) Costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal.
Dated and delivered this 23rd day of April, 2010
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Mrs. Onyango for the applicant
Muhia for the respondent
Eric - Court clerk