[2022] KEHC 1145 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 1145 (KLR)

The court found that the application for release of the deposited funds was premature because there was a dispute as to the exact amount due to the applicant, particularly in light of the reduction of general damages on appeal and the unresolved issue of costs. The respondent's computation, which factored in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 1145 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Mzehando Danson; Respondent: Ahmed Abeid Said
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 158 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Release of Deposited Funds
Outcome
application struck out as premature; each party to bear own costs
Judges
OA Sewe
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Release of Security, Costs Award, Judgment Enforcement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Release of Security Costs Award Judgment Enforcement

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzehando Danson

Appellant

Ahmed Abeid Said

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Release of Deposited Funds

  1. 1 Whether the sum deposited as security should be released to the applicant following the determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for release of funds is premature given the dispute on the amount due and unresolved costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for release of the deposited funds was premature because there was a dispute as to the exact amount due to the applicant, particularly in light of the reduction of general damages on appeal and the unresolved issue of costs. The respondent's computation, which factored in the security deposit, interest, and costs, indicated a lower sum was due than what the applicant claimed. Since the costs of the appeal had not yet been agreed or taxed, and the parties had not reached consensus on the final amount payable, the court held that it would be inappropriate to order release of the funds at this stage. Consequently, the application was struck out and each...

Court Disposition

application struck out as premature; each party to bear own costs

Orders

  • The application dated 10th March 2020 is struck out.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the application.