[2020] KEHC 2549 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2549 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay, as judgment was delivered on 30th July 2020 and the notice of appeal was filed on 4th August 2020. On the issue of substantial loss, the court noted that while the plaintiff produced title deeds, he did not provide valuation reports, making it difficult to conclude that the properties could cover the judgment sum if sold. Therefore, the court was satisfied that the defendants demonstrated the risk of substantial loss. Regarding security, the court held that the plaintiff had not provided credible evidence of his ability to refund the decretal sum and thus declined his request for partial payment. The court...

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2549 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Omulo Okoth; Defendant: Sam Nyamweya; Defendant: Football Kenya Federation (Being sued through its officials Sam Nyamweya, Michael Esakwa, Robert Asembo); Defendant: Citizen Weekly
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 October 2020
Case Number
Civil Suit 318 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application for stay of execution allowed with conditions
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Appeal Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance Substantial Loss Appeal Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omulo Okoth

Plaintiff

Sam Nyamweya

Defendant

Football Kenya Federation (Being sued through its officials Sam Nyamweya, Michael Esakwa, Robert Asembo)

Defendant

Citizen Weekly

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to an order for stay of execution of the decree pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants have demonstrated substantial loss if stay is denied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay, as judgment was delivered on 30th July 2020 and the notice of appeal was filed on 4th August 2020. On the issue of substantial loss, the court noted that while the plaintiff produced title deeds, he did not provide valuation reports, making it difficult to conclude that the properties could cover the judgment sum if sold. Therefore, the court was satisfied that the defendants demonstrated the risk of substantial loss. Regarding security, the court held that the plaintiff had not provided credible evidence of his ability to refund the decretal sum and thus declined his request for partial payment. The court...

Court Disposition

application for stay of execution allowed with conditions

Orders

  • An order for stay of execution of the decree pending appeal is granted on condition that the defendants deposit the principal sum of KES 9,000,000 in an interest earning account in the joint names of advocates or firms of advocates appearing in this matter within 60 days from the date hereof.
  • Alternatively, the defendants may provide a bank guarantee from a reputable bank for KES 9,000,000 within 60 days.