[2022] KEHC 15818 (KLR)
The court found that the appellant failed to annex the decrees or any supporting documents to substantiate the claim that decrees had been issued in favour of the respondents in the referenced cases. Despite being alerted to this deficiency and given an opportunity to rectify it, the appellant did not file a further...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 15818 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Florence Muthoni; Respondent: Josphat Muthuri Kinyua (suing for the estate of Susan Kanana alias Susan Kanana (deceased) & 5 others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E133 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay of execution dismissed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Decretal Sums
- 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
Florence Muthoni
Appellant
Josphat Muthuri Kinyua (suing for the estate of Susan Kanana alias Susan Kanana (deceased) & 5 others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the absence of annexed decrees or supporting documents affects the application for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to annex the decrees or any supporting documents to substantiate the claim that decrees had been issued in favour of the respondents in the referenced cases. Despite being alerted to this deficiency and given an opportunity to rectify it, the appellant did not file a further affidavit or provide the necessary documentation. As a result, the application for stay of execution was found to be fatally defective and incapable of being granted. The court therefore disallowed the application and directed the appellant to file appeals in respect of each of the alleged decrees.
Court Disposition
application for stay of execution dismissed
Orders
- The notice of motion dated and filed on October 28, 2022 is disallowed.
- The appellant is directed to file an appeal in respect of each of the alleged decrees.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Muthoni v Kinyua (suing for the estate of Susan Kanana alias Susan Kanana (deceased) & 5 others (Civil Appeal E133 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 15818 (KLR) (1 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 15818 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Civil Appeal E133 of 2022
TW Cherere, J
December 1, 2022
Between
Florence Muthoni
Appellant
and
Josphat Muthuri Kinyua (suing for the estate of Susan Kanana alias Susan Kanana (deceased) & 5 others
Respondent
Ruling
1. On August 31, 2022, the court entered judgment in Githongo PMCC No 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2018 respectively in favour of the respondents as against the appellant.
2. By a notice of motion dated and filed on October 28, 2022, appellant seeks orders for:1. Stay of execution of judgments and decrees in Githongo PMCC No 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2018 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal
3. The notice of motion is premised on grounds among others that the appellant is aggrieved by the inordinately high damages awarded to the respondents and has filed this appeal and additionally that appellant is likely to suffer substantial loss for the respondents are not in a position to refund the decretal sum.
4. The application is also supported by an affidavit sworn by the appellant on October 28, 2022 in which she reiterates the grounds on the face of the application.
5. In opposing the application, Josphat Muthuri Kinyua, the 1st respondent by an affidavit sworn on November 22, 2022 by on his own behalf and on behalf of the other 5 respondents in which he avers that this application is meant to delay the respondents from enjoying the fruits of their judgment. It is proposed for the respondent that in the event the application is granted, ½ of the decretal sum in each case be paid to the respectiove respondent.
Analysis and Determination 6. I have considered the application in light of affidavits on record the issue for determination is whether there ought to be stay of execution of judgment in Githongo PMCC No 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of 2018 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
7. It appears to me that this application was drawn and filed in a hurry for the reason that to the affidavit in support is not annexed the decrees or any document in support of the averment that decrees have been issued in favour of respondents in Githongo PMCC No 6, 7, 8, 9, 10and 11 of 2018.
8. This information was brought to the attention of the applicant’s counsel by this court’s order dated on November 1, 2022. It was expected that the applicant would file a further affidavit annexing the decrees but that was not to be
9. From the foregoing, I find that the notice of motion dated and filed on October 28, 2022, as drawn is incapable of being granted and it is disallowed.
10. It is further directed that appellant files an appeal in respect of each of the alleged decrees.
DATED IN MERU THIS 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022T.W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearancesCourt Assistant - Morris KinotiFor Appellant - Mr. Muia for Munene, Wambugu & Kiplagat AdvocatesFor Respondents - Ms. Asuma for Mutembei & Kimathi Advocates