[2021] KEHC 12628 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was filed without unreasonable delay, and the applicants expressed a reasonable fear that they would suffer substantial loss if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 12628 (KLR)
- Parties
- Respondent: Patrick Nyoike; Applicant: Linus Gitahi; Applicant: Nation Media Group Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 330 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed with conditions
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decree, Substantial Loss, Appeal Process
- 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
Patrick Nyoike
Respondent
Linus Gitahi
Applicant
Nation Media Group Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the applicants will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had satisfied the requirements for stay of execution pending appeal as set out in Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was filed without unreasonable delay, and the applicants expressed a reasonable fear that they would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeded, given the uncertainty regarding the respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum. The respondent did not provide sufficient evidence of means to guarantee recovery. The applicants were willing to provide security for the due performance of the decree. To balance the interests of both parties, the court granted the stay of execution on condition that the...
Court Disposition
application allowed with conditions
Orders
- Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 29th May, 2020 is granted pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
- The decretal sum is to be deposited in a joint interest earning bank account of the counsels for the parties or in court within 30 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 330 OF 2012
PATRICK NYOIKE..............................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
LINUS GITAHI.................................................1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
NATION MEDIA GROUP LIMITED............2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. The application dated 2nd July, 2020 seeks orders that there be a stay of execution of the judgment delivered by this Honourable Court on 29th May, 2020 pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal filed.
2. The application is premised on the grounds stated therein and the affidavit in support of the application. Judgment was entered herein on 29th May, 2020. The Applicants are aggrieved by the said judgment and have filed a Notice of Appeal. The Applicants are apprehensive that if execution proceeds the Appeal will be rendered nugatory and thereby suffer substantial loss. It is further stated that the Applicants will be unable to recover the decretal sum in the event that the Appeal succeeds. The Applicants are ready to provide security for the due performance of the decree.
3. The application is opposed. It is stated in the replying affidavit that the Application herein is calculated to delay the satisfaction of the award herein. That there has been inordinate delay in filing the application and no explanation has been given. That the application is premature as the execution process has not commenced. That in any event the Applicants will not suffer any prejudice as the Respondent is capable of refunding the decretal sum. That no Memorandum of Appeal is exhibited herein and therefore there is no way of knowing whether the Appeal is arguable.
4. I have considered the application, the response to the same and the submissions filed by the respective counsel for the parties.
5. Order 42 rule 6 (2) provides for the following conditions to be met in an application for stay of execution.
“6. (2) No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule
(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 of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.”
6. The judgment herein was delivered on 29th May, 2020. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 8th June, 2020. The application at hand was filed on 3rd July, 2020. The delay is not unreasonable.
7. Once the judgment has been delivered the right to execution is available to the Respondent. Although the Respondent has stated that he is not a man of straw and owns properties both in Nairobi and Thika, the transfer of property exhibited by the Respondent reflects that the property is owned jointly with the Respondent’s wife. There are no documents in support of the Respondent’s other means.
8. As stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Nrb Civil Application 238 of 2005 (UR 144/2005) National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd -Vs- Aquinas Francis Wasike & Another:
“This court has said before and it would bear repeating that while the legal duty is on an applicant to prove the allegation that an appeal would be rendered nugatory because a respondent would be unable to pay back the decretal sum, it is unreasonable to expect such an applicant to know in detail the resources owned by a respondent or the lack of them. Once an applicant expresses a reasonable fear that a respondent would be unable to pay back the decretal sum, the evidential burden must then shift to the respondent to show what resources he has since that is a matter which is peculiarly within his knowledge – see for example section 112 of the Evidence Act, Chapter 80 Laws of Kenya.”
9. This court’s view is that there could be difficulties in recovering the decretal sum. As stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Wangethi Mwangi v Hon. Amb. Chirau Ali Mwakere CA Nbi.353/2009.
“It is plain from the grounds set forth in the draft memorandum of appeal that the applicants have asked the appellate court to interfere with the awards of damages and there is possibility that the appellate court may either decline or reduce the awards considerably. In the event of the former there might be a long delay in recovering from the respondent the decretal sum as there are so many imponderables in the sale of the respondent’s land which forms the bulk of his assets. It is obvious therefore that in such a likely eventuality, the applicant might he greatly inconvenienced. The balance of convenience is definitely in favour of the applicants, we would think so.”
10. The Applicant is willing to furnish security for the decretal sum.
11. To balance the competing interests of both parties herein, I allow the application on condition that the decretal sum is deposited in a joint interest earning bank account of the counsels for the parties herein or in court within 30 days from the date hereof.
Date, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 11th day of Feb., 2021
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE