[2014] KEHC 5822 (KLR)
The court found that the supporting affidavit to the application for stay of execution was sworn by a person who was neither the appellant nor disclosed as acting on behalf of the appellant, making it fatally defective. As a result, the affidavit was struck out, leaving the application unsupported by any evidence or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 5822 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Patel Prabhakar; Respondent: Richard Chacha Imbosa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 89 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Affidavit Defects, Procedural Irregularities, Costs Award
- 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
Patel Prabhakar
Appellant
Richard Chacha Imbosa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of execution is competent in light of the supporting affidavit being sworn by a stranger.
- 2 Whether procedural defects in the application can be cured under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and the Civil Procedure Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the supporting affidavit to the application for stay of execution was sworn by a person who was neither the appellant nor disclosed as acting on behalf of the appellant, making it fatally defective. As a result, the affidavit was struck out, leaving the application unsupported by any evidence or facts. The court held that such a fundamental defect could not be cured by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution or the Civil Procedure Act. Consequently, the application was struck out with costs to the respondent, and the court found no need to consider the substantive parameters for granting a stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is struck out.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2013
(An appeal arising from the ruling delivered in Kakamega
CMCC No. 251 of 2012 by Hon. KENDAGOR,RM )
PATEL PRABHAKAR .................... APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
RICHARD CHACHA IMBOSA……….……. RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is an application by way of Notice of Motion dated 6th August 2013 filed by the appellant. No section of the law was cited on the application. The prayers sought are that the court be pleased to order a stay of execution in Kakamega CMCC No. 251 of 2012 pending the determination of the appeal. Secondly, that costs be provided for.
The application was filed with a supporting affidavit sworn by one Eliud Otieno Atita on 6/8/13, though in page one of the said affidavit the deponent was meant to be the appellant. This application was filed under Certificate of Urgency. On the same date, a Memorandum of Appeal was filed.
Another application dated 2/1/14 was filed on 3/1/14. That application prompted this court to grant stay of orders initially for 14 days. The interim orders were later extended.
On the hearing date of the present application, Mr. Munyendo, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the application for stay of execution be granted. He relied on the affidavits filed. Mr. Ondieki, learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the replying affidavit filed. He opposed the application. No case authority was cited to me by either side.
This is an application for stay of execution of a decree.
Order 42 rule 6 (2) and (3)of theCivil Procedure Rules provides for the conditions upon which this court may grant stay of execution of a decree or order. It states as follows -
“6 (2) No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule
(1) unless -
(a) The court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
(b) Such security as the court orders for the due performance for such decree or order will be ultimately be binding by theapplicant.
Notwithstanding anything the court will have power to order upon such terms as it may deem fit a stay of execution pending the hearing of a formal application.”
The application by the appellant does not cite the law under which it was brought. However, in my view, that is a procedural defect which can be cured under Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as well as Section 1Aand 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21).
The application however relies on an affidavit sworn by Eliud Otieno Atita, who is not the appellant. The said Eliud Otieno was not swearing the affidavit on behalf of the appellant. In my view, that affidavit sworn by a complete stranger, whose identity and connection with the appellant was not disclosed, is fatally defective. Being a fatally defective affidavit, it is hereby struck out. Since the affidavit has now been struck out, the application remains bare with no evidence or facts to support it. It cannot therefore stand. The defect canot be cured by Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution or the Civil Procedure Act. The application will therefore have to be struck out.
Having decided to strike out the application, I find no necessity of considering the parameters set out under Order 42 rule 6 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the formal application has been struck out.
To conclude I strike out the application with costs to the respondent.
Dated and delivered at Kakamega this 3rd day of April, 2014
George Dulu
J U D G E