[2004] KEHC 1427 (KLR)
The court found that while execution is not complete until the proceeds of sale are released to the decree holder, the applicant failed to provide any evidence that the proceeds had not been released. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging that the proceeds are still held by the court or broker. In the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1427 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Naresh Rathod; Respondent: Mohamed Dad Mohamed
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 215 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Execution of Judgments, Burden of Proof
- 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
Naresh Rathod
Appellant
Mohamed Dad Mohamed
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether execution is complete if the proceeds of sale have been released to the decree holder.
- 2 Whether a stay of execution can be granted when execution is allegedly complete.
- 3 Who bears the burden of proving that the proceeds of sale have not been released.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while execution is not complete until the proceeds of sale are released to the decree holder, the applicant failed to provide any evidence that the proceeds had not been released. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging that the proceeds are still held by the court or broker. In the absence of such evidence, the court accepted the respondent's assertion that the proceeds had been released, rendering the application for stay of execution futile as there was nothing left to stay. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 2003
NARESH RATHOD …………………… DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
- Versus -
MOHAMED DAD MOHAMED ………. PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This is an application for stay of execution pending the hearing of this appeal from the judgment of the Resident Magistrate in Mombasa CMCC No. 3162 of 2003. Admitting that execution had been levied and his client evicted from the suit premises and that his properties had been attached and sold, Mr. Suchak however argued that execution is not complete until the proceeds of sale are released to the decree holder. He argued that if stay is not granted his client will suffer and the appeal will be rendered nugatory. The appeal has a high probability of success, he said, and stay should therefore be granted. Mr. Kilonzo for the applicant opposed the application. He said there is nothing to stay as execution was completed. The Applicant has been evicted from the suit premises and the same has been let out to a third party. Furthermore the applicants properties have been sold and the proceeds thereof have been released to the Respondent. So execution is complete.
I agree with Mr. Suchak that execution is not complete until the proceeds of sale have been released to the decree holder. If the proceeds of sale are with the Court Broker or are deposited in court or with counsel for the decree holder, stay can be granted with an appropriate order that they be held until the appeal is disposed of or until further orders of the court. In this case the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the sale proceeds have not been released to the respondent. It is not said who is holding them. The onus is on a party who alleges a fact to prove it. The Applicant has not proved that the proceeds of sale have not been released.
In the circumstances I have no option but to accept the respondent’s assertion through counsel that the proceeds of sale have been released. Consequently there is no execution to be stayed in this matter. Granting an order of stay in such circumstances will be an exercise in futility. The court does not act in vain. The application is dismissed with costs.
DATED this 2nd day of March 2004.
D.K. Maraga
Ag. JUDGE