[2015] KEELC 833 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2015] KEELC 833 (KLR)
Parties: Appellant: M’Mucheke M’Mubwika; Appellant: Meshack Murungi; Appellant: Stephen Meeme; Appellant: Julius Kaari Mucheke; Respondent: Janet Kaunanku Kithis; Respondent: Simon Maore
Court: Environment and Land Court
Court Station: Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Civil Appeal 36 of 2015
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Release of Deposited Funds Pending Appeal
Outcome: application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges: FM Njoroge
Legal Topics: Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Appeal Procedure, Release of Funds
Source Language: en

Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Appeal Procedure Release of Funds

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

M’Mucheke M’Mubwika

Appellant

Meshack Murungi

Appellant

Stephen Meeme

Appellant

Julius Kaari Mucheke

Appellant

Janet Kaunanku Kithis

Respondent

Simon Maore

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Release of Deposited Funds Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment and decree in Maua C.M.C.C No. 43 of 2011 pending appeal.
2 Whether the applicants are entitled to partial release of deposited funds and retention of security for due performance.
3 Whether failure to comply with conditional stay orders warrants dismissal of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the conditional stay granted, specifically by not depositing the required Kshs. 300,000 as security within the stipulated 14 days. Additionally, the applicants failed to file and exchange written submissions as ordered. The court held that compliance with such conditions is mandatory for the benefit of a stay of execution. The lapse of the conditional stay was automatic upon non-compliance, and the applicants' absence and failure to prosecute their application further justified dismissal. The court therefore dismissed the application and awarded costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

The application dated 9/9/2015 is dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the respondents.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

37 paragraphs

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU

LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT

CIVIL APPEAL NO 36 OF 2015

M’MUCHEKE M’MUBWIKA ...........................................1ST APPELLANT

MESHACK MURUNGI .....................................................2ND APPELLANT

STEPHEN MEEME.............................................................3RD APPELLANT

JULIUS KAARI MUCHEKE............................................4TH APPELLANT

VERSUS

JANET KAUNANKU KITHIS..........................................1ST RESPONDENT

SIMON MAORE.................................................................2ND RESPONDENT

RULING

The application states that it is brought to Court Under Section 3 and 3 A of Cap. 21 and Order 22 Rule 50,51 and 53 CPR and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya. The application is dated 9/9/2015 and seeks orders :-

THATthis application be certified as urgent and the Honourable Court be pleased to hear it ex-parte in the first instance.

THATthe Honourable Court be pleased to order a stay of execution of judgement and decree in Maua C.M.C.C NO. 43 OF 2011 pending the hearing and determination of this application.

THATthe Honourable Court be pleased to order that of the 1st defendants Kshs. 937,300/= deposited in MAUA C.M.C.C No.43 of 2011 Kshs. 574,000/= be retained in Court as security for due performance incase the appellants appeal fails and the balance of Kshs. 363,300/= be released to the appellants pending hearing and determination of this appeal.

THATthe Honourable Court be pleased to confirm prayer (2) supra upon inter parties hearing of this application.

THATCosts of this application be provided for:

This application is supported by the affidavit of M’MUCHEKE M’MUBWIKA and JULIUS KARI MUCHEKE and has the following grounds:-

The appellants have filed this appeal which has high chances of success.

The appellants have proposed to offer security that is adequate to cover the respondents decree in the sub-ordinate suit.

If the orders sought are not allowed the respondent shall unjustly enrich themselves and may not be able to refund the appellants.

Vide an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 9/9/2015, the applicant obtained conditional stay pending hearing of the application dated 12/8/2015. The Court issued the following Orders:-

The applicant should deposit a sum of Kshs. 300,000/= with Court as security within 14 days of today failing which the conditional stay issued herein will lapse automatically.

Applicants to file and exchange written submissions regarding both applications , one dated 12. 08. 2015 and the other dated 9. 9.2015, within 7 days and the respondents to file and exchange their Written Submissions with respect to the 2 applications within 7 days after service of the applicants’ Written Submissions upon them.

Confirmation of filing of written submissions on 7. 10. 2015.

The matter came up for confirmation of filing and exchange of Written Submission on 7/10/2015. Mr. Harun Gitonga pointed out that the applicants had not observed the orders issued by this Court on 16/9/2015 regarding filing and exchange of Submissions. He said that as he had not received the applicants’ Submissions he was unable to file his Submissions which would have been a response to those ones of the applicant.

Mr. Gitonga also informed the Court that the applicants had not deposited a sum of Kshs. 300,000/= in Court as security as ordered by the Court.

The Applicants are not in Court. Their Advocate is also not in Court though he was aware that this matter was to be in Court today, 7/10/2015.

I find that the applicants have not observed the terms of the conditional stay granted to them which lapsed automatically 14 days after 16/9/2015 within which time they should have deposited in Court the amount of money the Court had stipulated. I also find that the applicants have failed to prosecute their application.

In the Circumstances, the application is dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondents.

Delivered in open Court at Meru this 8th day of October, 2015 in the presence of: -

Lilian /Daniel

Harun Gitonga for Respondents

Kirimi Mbogo Absent for Applicants

P. M. NJOROGE

JUDGE

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.