[2021] KEHC 9479 (KLR)
The appellants failed to comply with the conditional stay order by not depositing the full decretal sum within the 21-day period as directed by the court. No plausible reason or application for extension of time was provided, nor was the appeal prosecuted within a reasonable time. As a result, the conditional stay...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 9479 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Okwach John; Appellant: Thomas Obondo; Respondent: Daniel Kiprugut Korir
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 11 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Decretal Sum and Dismissal of Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed; appeal dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AN Ongeri
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decree, Appeal Dismissal, Release of Decretal Sum
- 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
Okwach John
Appellant
Thomas Obondo
Appellant
Daniel Kiprugut Korir
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Decretal Sum and Dismissal of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellants complied with the conditional stay order by depositing the full decretal sum within the stipulated period.
- 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to the release of the amount deposited in court as partial security.
- 3 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution and non-compliance with court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants failed to comply with the conditional stay order by not depositing the full decretal sum within the 21-day period as directed by the court. No plausible reason or application for extension of time was provided, nor was the appeal prosecuted within a reasonable time. As a result, the conditional stay of execution was discharged, and there was no justification for retaining the partial security deposited in court. The respondent was therefore entitled to the release of the deposited sum, and the appeal was dismissed with costs for want of prosecution and non-compliance with court orders.
Court Disposition
application allowed; appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- The sum of Kshs.1,190,601 deposited in court by the appellants to be released to the respondent.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11 OF 2017
OKWACH JOHN.........................................1ST APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
THOMAS OBONDO...................................2ND APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
DANIEL KIPRUGUT KORIR..............................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. The Application coming for consideration in this ruling is the Notice of Motion dated 18/9/2020 seeking the release of Kshs.1,190,601 deposited in court by the Appellant’s/Respondents vide receipts No.0427157 and 0427158 to the Respondent’s Advocate for onward transmission to the Respondent.
2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of it and supported by the Affidavit of the Respondent/Applicant Daniel Kiprugut Korir of even date.
3. The Applicant has deposed in the Supporting Affidavit that on 1/11/2018, Hon. Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi granted the Appellant conditional stay and ordered them to deposit in court the entire decretal sum within 21 days.
4. The Appellants only deposited 1,190,601 and the balance of Kshs.1,190,519 has not been deposited to date, two years after the said order was issued by Hon. Lady Justice Mumbi Ngugi. Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, establishes the conditions that must be met before stay of execution can be granted. The grounds laid out are that the party seeking stay must establish that the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay, that security for the decree or order has been given and substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order for stay is made. The Appellant/Respondents therefore failed to give the security for decree/order as was required.
5. Further the Applicant stated that the appeal has not been prosecuted within a reasonable time.
6. The Respondent who has commenced execution proceedings in the lower court in now seeking release of the amount deposited in court by the Appellant.
7. The Appellants filed a Replying Affidavit dated 23/10/2020 in which they stated that they are willing to deposit the balance of the decretal sum and to prosecute the appeal, however no explanation as to the undue delay in depositing the other half of the decretal amount or in prosecuting the appeal has been given by the Appellants.
8. I have considered the submissions filed by both parties and I find that there is no plausible reason advanced by the Appellants why the orders issued on 1/11/2018 were not complied with. The Appellant/Respondent failed to deposit the entire decretal amount within the 21day period as was required, the orders of stay of execution pending appeal therefore stands discharged, and there is therefore no need to continue holding half the decretal amount that was deposited in court as security thereby denying the Applicant/Respondents the fruits of his judgement. The High Court at Nairobi, in Civil Appeal 38 of 2013, Akiida 2000 Company Ltd versus Josephat Wamuyu Gitau, observed that “Indeed, the court orders for stay of execution issued on 26th March, 2013 were conditional. The stay of execution was to last until the hearing and determination of the three (3) applications which applications stood dismissed as at 10th March, 2016. It is only just therefore that the decretal sum is released to the Applicant.”
9. The Appellants did not seek extension of time to comply with the court orders and neither have they taken any steps to prosecute the appeal.
10. I find the Application dated 18/9/2020 has merit and I allow it and direct that the sum of Kshs.1,190,601/= deposited in court by the Appellants be released to the Respondent.
11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Orders to issue accordingly.
Delivered, signed and dated at Kericho this 29th day of January 2021.
A. N. ONGERI
JUDGE