[2022] KEELC 12806 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 12806 (KLR)

The court found that although the application for stay of execution pending appeal was filed without unreasonable delay and a notice of appeal was on record, the applicant failed to demonstrate or justify the substantial loss he would suffer if stay was not granted. Furthermore, the applicant did not offer or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 12806 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Mungai Ng’ang’a; Defendant: Paul Kiprotich Bii; Defendant: John Wachira Chiri
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 388 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Mungai Ng’ang’a

Plaintiff

Paul Kiprotich Bii

Defendant

John Wachira Chiri

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application was filed without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the application for stay of execution pending appeal was filed without unreasonable delay and a notice of appeal was on record, the applicant failed to demonstrate or justify the substantial loss he would suffer if stay was not granted. Furthermore, the applicant did not offer or express willingness to provide security for the due performance of the decree as required by law. The court held that all statutory conditions for granting a stay of execution must be satisfied, and failure to prove any one of them is fatal to the application. Consequently, the application lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated May 19, 2022 is dismissed with costs.