[2018] KECA 117 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 117 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had satisfied both limbs required for a stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules: the intended appeal was arguable and not frivolous, and if stay was not granted, the appeal could be rendered nugatory. The Court noted that the High Court had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KECA 117 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Nairobi Women’s Hospital; Respondent: Purity Kemunto
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 222 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution allowed in part.
Judges
F Sichale
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Medical Negligence, Decretal Sum Security, Appeal Nugatory Test
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Stay of Execution Medical Negligence Decretal Sum Security Appeal Nugatory Test

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nairobi Women’s Hospital

Applicant

Purity Kemunto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the High Court's ruling and order pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the conditions imposed by the High Court for stay of execution were onerous and amounted to a denial of stay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's intended appeal is arguable and would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had satisfied both limbs required for a stay of execution under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules: the intended appeal was arguable and not frivolous, and if stay was not granted, the appeal could be rendered nugatory. The Court noted that the High Court had already granted a conditional stay, indicating the existence of bona fide issues. The Court also observed that there was no evidence of the respondent's financial ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, and that the applicant had already paid Kshs 10 million under its insurance policy. Balancing the hardships, including the special needs of the respondent's child...

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution allowed in part.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the High Court ruling and order dated 18th July 2018 is granted, except as regards the payment of Kshs 10 million to the respondent.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal.