[2024] KEELC 4058 (KLR)
The court found that the order issued by the lower court was a negative order, as the appellant's suit was dismissed with costs and there was no positive order requiring the respondent to do anything except to be entitled to costs. The appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, did not offer security for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEELC 4058 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Gladys Karimi M'Mburugu; Respondent: Jeniffer Rinya Mburugu; Respondent: Alice Chaku Mburugu
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- CK Nzili
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Costs Taxation, Negative Orders, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Gladys Karimi M'Mburugu
Appellant
Jeniffer Rinya Mburugu
Respondent
Alice Chaku Mburugu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution of the lower court's judgment and consequential orders pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the execution of taxed costs constitutes substantial loss to the appellant.
- 3 Whether a stay can be granted against a negative order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the order issued by the lower court was a negative order, as the appellant's suit was dismissed with costs and there was no positive order requiring the respondent to do anything except to be entitled to costs. The appellant failed to demonstrate substantial loss, did not offer security for the due execution of the decree, and did not provide evidence that the respondents were incapable of refunding the costs if the appeal succeeded. The court held that execution of costs does not, by itself, amount to substantial loss and that a stay cannot be granted against a negative order. The application for stay of execution was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
M'Mburugu v Mburugu & another (Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 4058 (KLR) (15 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEELC 4058 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Meru
Environment and Land Appeal E006 of 2023
CK Nzili, J
May 15, 2024
Between
Gladys Karimi M'Mburugu
Appellant
and
Jeniffer Rinya Mburugu
1st Respondent
Alice Chaku Mburugu
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The court, by an application dated 12. 2.2024 is asked to stay the execution of a judgment of the lower court delivered on 16. 2.2023 and all its consequential orders, pending hearing and disposal of this appeal. The grounds are set on the face of the application and in the supporting and the application and the supporting affidavit of Gladys Karimi M'Mburugu sworn on 12. 2.2024. It is averred that auctioneers proclaimed the appellant's household goods on 7. 2.2024 to satisfy the decree as per the attached warrants of attachments and sale as an annexure marked GKM "3" or she terms the attachment as invalid or illegal and, if not stopped, likely to occasion her substantial harm or loss and render the appeal nugatory.
2. The application is opposed by a joint replying affidavit of Jeniffer Rinya Mburugu and Alice Chuka Mburugu, sworn on 28. 2.2024. It is averred that the appellant's suit was dismissed with costs at the lower court; hence, there was no positive order to stay or enforce. The respondents aver that the costs being executed were for Kshs 124,319 as taxed, which certificate of costs was final, binding and has not been challenged on appeal. The respondents termed the application as frivolous, vexatious, scandalous and an abuse of the court process.
3. A party seeking a stay of execution has to apply without delay, offer security for the due execution of the decree, demonstrate substantial loss, and explain why it is in the interest of justice to grant the orders sought.
4. In James Wangalwa v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto (2012) eKLR, the court held that execution per se does not amount to substantial loss since it is a legal process and a party must show what more would happen to the substratum of appeal should the execution process interfere with the status of the substratum.
5. There is no dispute that the trial court issued a negative order. A court cannot stay a negative order. There was nothing the respondent was directed to do to the substratum of the suit save to be entitled to costs. A reference has not been filed regarding the taxed costs.
6. In RWW v EKW (2019) eKLR, the court said to grant or refuse a stay is discretionary and is done through balancing the interests of the two parties. The applicant has not offered any security for the due realization of the decree should the appeal not succeed.
7. The applicant has not termed the respondents as incapable of refunding the costs. The court has not been told how and why the warrants of proclamation and sale are illegal, invalid, and bad in law. It is not enough to allege a nugatory aspect without proof, as held in NIC Bank Ltd v Aquinas Francis Wasike & another (2015) eKLR. The upshot is that I find no merits in the application. The same is dismissed with costs.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT MERU ON THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2024In presence ofC.A KananuGithinji for Mbaabu Inoti for applicantMawira for Gichunge for the respondentHON. C K NZILIJUDGE