[2023] KEHC 595 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant has a legal right to seek redress from the Court of Appeal, he failed to demonstrate any loss he would suffer if stay was not granted or that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory. The court noted that the respondent had made efforts to comply with the court's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 595 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Caroline Mwinzi; Defendant: George Ngui Kimanzi; Interested Party: Kiberiti Merchants Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case E011 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Process, Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
Caroline Mwinzi
Plaintiff
George Ngui Kimanzi
Defendant
Kiberiti Merchants Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution of the court's ruling pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of stay of execution.
- 3 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant has a legal right to seek redress from the Court of Appeal, he failed to demonstrate any loss he would suffer if stay was not granted or that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory. The court noted that the respondent had made efforts to comply with the court's orders, while the applicant had not shown compliance or provided an explanation for non-compliance. The orders in question were intended to preserve the status quo and did not prejudice any party, including the applicant. Therefore, the application for stay of execution was not merited and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed.
- The applicant shall bear the costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Mwinzi v Kimanzi; Kiberiti Merchants Limited (Interested Party) (Civil Case E011 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 595 (KLR) (9 February 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 595 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nakuru
Civil Case E011 of 2021
HK Chemitei, J
February 9, 2023
Between
Caroline Mwinzi
Plaintiff
and
George Ngui Kimanzi
Defendant
and
Kiberiti Merchants Limited
Interested Party
Ruling
1. In his Notice of Motion dated 14th November 2022, the applicant prays for the following orders;(a)That the court be pleased to grant stay of execution and or implementation of its ruling delivered on 29th September 2022 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal at the court appeal.
2. The application is supported by the applicants sworn affidavit dated even date as well as the grounds on the face thereof.
3. Basically, all that the applicant is praying for is an order staying the ruling of this court delivered on 29th September 2022 as he was dissatisfied with the same and that it was his constitutional right to seek redress in the said court. That failure to do so will render the appeal an exercise in futility.
4. The respondent has opposed the application through the grounds of opposition dated 21st November 2022 and her replying affidavit sworn on the same date. She avers that the application ought not to be allowed as the Notice of Appeal was filed way out of time and that she was in the process of applying to have it struck out.
5. She went on to give details of how she has tried to have the order by this court implemented especially opening of accounts and the management of the properties. It is her case that the applicant has completely failed to adhere to the said directives but has instead frustrated the whole process and thus the filing of this application is one of the ways he has chosen to do so.
6. The court is well seized of this matter. The directives issued on the 29th September 2022 are clear and does not need further clarification.
7. It is however the legal right of the applicant to seek further redress from the higher court, namely Court of Appeal. This however must be balanced with the interest of all the affected parties.
8. It is not disputed that the respondent at least from the attachments to the affidavit has attempted to effect the orders of this court. There is nothing to demonstrate that the applicant has complied. There is no explanation why the accounts have not been opened yet nor an appointment of an estate agent.
9. To grant the prayers sought by the applicant without concomitant response to compliance of this court’s orders will not augur well for the cause of justice. The applicant has not demonstrated any iota of loss he stands to suffer should the orders not be granted.
10. Looking at the said orders, in my respectful view, none of the parties including the applicant stand to suffer should the same be implemented. They were simply to preserve actively the status quo pending the determination of the suit.
11. Nonetheless, it is absolutely proper and right for the applicant to seek further redress from the Court of Appeal. This court however does not find an order of stay pending the intended appeal meritorious for now since as indicated above, the applicant has not persuaded this court what he will suffer. The intended appeal will not be rendered nugatory in my view as the subject property has not passed to any other third party. The monthly proceeds in any case are and shall still be accounted for.
12. In the premises, the application is not merited and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 9TH FEBRUARY 2023. H. K. CHEMITEIJUDGE