[2005] KEHC 72 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 72 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants had not advanced any good reason for the grant of interim stay of execution pending the hearing of the application inter-partes. The supporting affidavit revealed that the appellants failed to comply with the subordinate court's order to deposit the decretal sum of KES 679,525...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 72 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mark Okere; Appellant: George Adongo; Respondent: Patrick Kidiavai
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 22 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
ex-parte application for interim stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Interim Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeals Process Interim Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Okere

Appellant

George Adongo

Appellant

Patrick Kidiavai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants have demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of interim stay of execution pending the hearing of the application inter-partes.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to comply with the subordinate court's order to deposit the decretal sum precludes the grant of interim stay.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants will suffer substantial irreparable loss if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants had not advanced any good reason for the grant of interim stay of execution pending the hearing of the application inter-partes. The supporting affidavit revealed that the appellants failed to comply with the subordinate court's order to deposit the decretal sum of KES 679,525 within the stipulated period, and no application for review of that order had been made. The court was not persuaded that the risk of irreparable loss or the merits of the appeal justified granting interim relief in the absence of compliance with the prior order. Consequently, the ex-parte application for interim stay was dismissed, with the court advising the appellants to fix...

Court Disposition

ex-parte application for interim stay of execution dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The ex-parte application for interim stay of execution is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent.