[2024] KEHC 12713 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 12713 (KLR)

The court found that the appellant had already sought and been denied a similar stay of execution by the Court of Appeal, a fact not disclosed to this court. This non-disclosure undermined the appellant's application. The court further held that the requirements for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 12713 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Dr Peter Olakhi Odongo; Respondent: Kamuyu Wanjiku; Respondent: Dr Paul Odula; Respondent: Avenue Nursing Hospital
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E147 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Applications for Stay of Execution and Release of Security Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed; application for release of security allowed.
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Release of Security, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Release of Security Appeals Process

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Peter Olakhi Odongo

Appellant

Kamuyu Wanjiku

Respondent

Dr Paul Odula

Respondent

Avenue Nursing Hospital

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Applications for Stay of Execution and Release of Security Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be granted stay of release of the deposited security pending the second appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the money deposited as security should be released to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had already sought and been denied a similar stay of execution by the Court of Appeal, a fact not disclosed to this court. This non-disclosure undermined the appellant's application. The court further held that the requirements for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules were not met, as there was no sufficient cause shown for granting a stay, and the application lacked candour. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for stay and allowed the respondents' application for release of the deposited security, finding that the respondents were entitled to the funds following the dismissal of the appellant's application.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution dismissed; application for release of security allowed.

Orders

  • The application dated 16/2/2024 for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
  • The application dated 21/2/2024 for release of deposited security is allowed with costs to the respondents.