[2007] KEHC 2952 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence that the appellant had breached any terms of the stay of execution order. The delay in prosecuting the appeal was attributed to the court's failure to supply proceedings, not to any fault of the appellant. The stay order was not limited to a particular period but was to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2952 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Paul Krijnen; Respondent: Joseph Wachira Murakaru
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 132 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the appellant
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
- 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
Paul Krijnen
Appellant
Joseph Wachira Murakaru
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Set Aside Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order of stay of execution pending appeal should be set aside to allow the respondent to satisfy the decree.
- 2 Whether there has been a breach of the terms of the stay order by the appellant.
- 3 Whether delay in prosecuting the appeal justifies setting aside the stay of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence that the appellant had breached any terms of the stay of execution order. The delay in prosecuting the appeal was attributed to the court's failure to supply proceedings, not to any fault of the appellant. The stay order was not limited to a particular period but was to last until the appeal was heard and determined. The respondent's remedy, if aggrieved by the delay, would be to seek dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution, not to set aside the stay. Accordingly, the application to set aside the stay of execution was dismissed with costs to the appellant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the appellant
Orders
- The application to set aside the stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 132 of 2002
PAUL KRIJNEN………………………………………….…APPELLANT
VERSUS
JOSEPH WACHIRA MURAKARU ……………………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
By a motion taken out pursuant to Order XLI rule 4 of the civil Procedure Rules, Joseph Wachira Murakaru, the Respondent herein, sought to have the order staying execution of the decree pending appeal to be set aside and for a further order directing the release of the deposit to settle the decree. The Respondent swore an affidavit to support the motion. The appellant’s Counsel filed grounds of opposition to object to the motion.
It is the submission of Mr. Gathuku advocate for the Respondent that the order of stay should be set aside to enable the Respondent attach the funds deposited in a joint interest earning account to satisfy the decree. The basis of his averment is that the appellant is out of this court’s jurisdiction and that as a result it has taken long to prosecute the appeal.
On her part Mrs. Tutui advocate for the appellant is of the view that the motion has no merit because the appellant has not breached any terms of the order of stay. She also stated that the delay to prosecute the appeal is beyond her control because the proceedings have not been supplied to the appellant by the court.
I have considered the arguments for and against the motion. What is clear is that the Respondent is tired of waiting for the appeal to be heard and determined. Mr. Gathuku has complained and alluded that the delay has been caused by the absence of the appellants from Kenya. The record is very explicit that the appellant’s advocate has made tremendous efforts to have the proceedings supplied to the appellant but it appears the court has not managed to do so. There is no evidence that proceedings will be supplied only when the appellant is in Kenya. To the best of my understanding, it is not necessary for the appellant to be personally present in Kenya. If well advised, the Respondent can as well seek to have the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution instead of filing such an application. An application like this can only be sustained if there is evidence that the terms of the order for stay of execution have been breached. The Respondent does not allude to that. It is not also said that the stay out was limited to a particular period. I have perused it and it is clear that it was to last until the appeal is heard and finally determined. The appeal can only be determined after hearing or is dismissed for want of prosecution or is settled by compromise.
For the foregoing reasons the application is ordered dismissed with costs to the appellant.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 21st Day of February 2007.
J.K. SERGON
J U D G E
In open court and in the presence of Mr. Ouma h/b for Mrs. Tutui for the Appellant. N/A Gathuku for the Respondent.