[2008] KEHC 2301 (KLR)
The court found that while the respondent demonstrated capacity to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, the applicant had raised sufficient grounds regarding potential substantial loss to its large membership and the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory. However, the applicant's offer of security...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2301 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mwea Rice Growers Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd; Respondent: Hon. Ngenye Kariuki; Respondent: Loinge Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 29 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Conditional stay of execution granted.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum, Substantial Loss, Appeal Process, Interest on Decree
- 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
Mwea Rice Growers Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd
Plaintiff
Hon. Ngenye Kariuki
Respondent
Loinge Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay of execution is not granted.
- 2 Whether the respondent is capable of refunding the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds.
- 3 Whether the applicant has provided adequate security for the due performance of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the respondent demonstrated capacity to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, the applicant had raised sufficient grounds regarding potential substantial loss to its large membership and the risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory. However, the applicant's offer of security was inadequate, as the proposed motor vehicles were old and unvalued. Balancing the interests of both parties and guided by precedent, the court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution on condition that the applicant deposits KES 1.5 million in an interest-earning joint account in the names of the advocates for both parties within 21 days. This security would...
Court Disposition
Conditional stay of execution granted.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the decree is granted upon the applicant depositing KES 1,500,000 in an interest-earning account with a reputable bank in the joint names of the applicant's and respondents' advocates within 21 days.
- If the deposit is not made within 21 days, the stay shall lapse.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU
Civil Case 29 of 2004
MWEA RICE GROWERS MULT-PURPOSE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD…………..………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HON. NGENYE KARIUKI…………………………1ST RESPONDENT
LOINGE LTD………………………………………..2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
Notice of Motion dated 21/12/2007 seeks stay of execution of decree in this case pending hearing and determination of the Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 211 of 2007 and until further orders of this court on the grounds set out on application the decree is in the sum of Shs.3,293,465/=. The application is supported by Affidavit of Munene Muriithi showing that Respondent has already engaged auctioneer to execute decree and that the appeal raises substantial issues and if stay is not granted members of Applicant numbering about 3000 shall suffer and the Co-operative Society will be grounded and the appeal shall be rendered nugatory. The application is brought under Order. 41 Rule 4 (1) and Order XL V111 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code.
On the part of Respondent it is sworn that interest will continue to escalate unless payment is made as soon as possible. Also that the Appeal has no chances of success. The applicants have not shown what substantial loss will occur if orders are not granted. The Respondent has showed that he can refund the money if appeal was to succeed (See paragraph 14 of Replying Affidavit.) Also that this application was not made without reasonable delay occasioning the increase in amount of interest and auctioneer expenses to the plaintiff/Respondent. Both parties have filed further affidavits which I have perused the Applicant offers security by deposits of motor vehicles already old and not valued with the respondent. A list of authorities is filed by Respondents Advocate.
1. In case No. HCC at Meru Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2007the court ordered deposit of decretal sum in a joint Account.
2. In Case No. 1950/2000 Alibhai Shariff & Sons Ltd vs Technical Trading Ltd the application was dismissed.
3. In case of Lee Muthoga vs Habib Zerich Finance (K) Ltd. Application was dismissed.
I have considered all these authorities and the arguments advanced to support the decisions reached. Reading the Order 41 Rule 4 it is clear that the main ground is the prove of substantial loss and the ability of the decree holder to repay the money if the appeal is successful. The decree holder has attempted to show that he is not a man of straw and he can refund the money. However I have come to the conclusion that the Applicant may be granted stay orders upon depositing Shs.1. 5.million in an interest earning account with a reputable Bank in joint names of Applicant’s Advocate and Respondents Advocates pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The deposit shall be made within 21 days from today.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 8th May, 2008.
J. N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
8/5/2008
Khaminwa – Judge
Njue – Clerk
Mr. Kahiga -present
Read in open court.
J. N . KHAMINWA
JUDGE