[2018] KEHC 9233 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 9233 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had filed the application for stay of execution without unreasonable delay, as the judgment was delivered on 20th July, 2017 and the application was filed on 2nd October, 2017. The applicant's averment that the respondent may not be able to refund the decretal sum was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 9233 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Luka Charles Musumba; Respondent: Charles Munge
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 394 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution allowed on condition of security.
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Appeal Timelines, Substantial Loss, Discretionary Powers
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Appeal Timelines Substantial Loss Discretionary Powers

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luka Charles Musumba

Applicant

Charles Munge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Stay of Execution Application Pending Appeal

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had filed the application for stay of execution without unreasonable delay, as the judgment was delivered on 20th July, 2017 and the application was filed on 2nd October, 2017. The applicant's averment that the respondent may not be able to refund the decretal sum was not controverted. The applicant also expressed willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree. Applying the principles under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution, subject to the applicant depositing the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account of the parties' advocates or in court...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution allowed on condition of security.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the judgment dated 20th July, 2017 and all consequential orders granted pending determination of the appeal.
  • Applicant to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest earning bank account of the counsels for both parties or in court within 30 days from the date hereof.