[2000] KEHC 405 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any substantial loss that would result if the stay was not granted and did not show that the application was made without unreasonable delay, as required by Order XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the intended appeal sought to overturn a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 405 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Payless Car Hire & Tours Limited; Respondent: Julius Njuguna Ngoroge; Respondent: Another
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 468 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Consent Orders, Appeals 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
Payless Car Hire & Tours Limited
Applicant
Julius Njuguna Ngoroge
Respondent
Another
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the decree pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the requirements under Order XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules have been satisfied.
- 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any substantial loss that would result if the stay was not granted and did not show that the application was made without unreasonable delay, as required by Order XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Furthermore, the intended appeal sought to overturn a consent order, and the notice of appeal was out of time, indicating no valid appeal was pending. The court concluded that the application was devoid of substance and was brought solely to delay the respondent's recovery of the decretal amount. Accordingly, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Payless Car Hire & Tours Limited v Julius Njuguna Ngoroge & Another
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi August 29, 2000
Milimani Commercial Courts
T Mbaluto, Judge
Civil Case No. 468 Of 1998 August 29, 2000 T Mbaluto, Judge delivered the following judgment.
This is an application to stay execution of a decree issued in this suit. The application which has been lodged under Order XLI rule 4 and Order L rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules is based on the following grounds:-
(a) That the applicants have already filed a notice of appeal;
(b) That they have an arguable appeal with a probability of success; and
(c) The applicants have a good defence which is meritorious and which ought to be looked into before they are condemned.
There is also an affidavit in support of the application sworn by Julius Njuguna Njoroge, the 1st of the two applicants which purports to lay the factual basis of the application but fails to bring out some important facts of this case.
In this respect it is necessary I think, to observe at the outset that the intended appeal in respect of which a Notice of Appeal has purportedly been given seeks to overturn a consent order entered between the parties hereto. Pursuant to that order, the applicant agreed to settle the decretal sum but now appears to have resiled from the commitment. Further, Mr Adipo who appeared for the respondent in this application submitted that the Notice which the applicant’s learned counsel is now talking about is in fact out of time and, given the facts of this matter, I think he is right. Consequently there would appear to be no appeal pending before any court. That is not however a matter upon which I can adjudicate, it being a matter for the Court of Appeal.
What I can however say of this application is that it is wholly devoid of substance and has clearly be brought purely to delay the respondent in the recovery of the decretal amount. I say so because under Order XLI rule 4, the very rule under which the application has been brought, it is provided:
“No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless 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.”
No attempt whatsoever has been made to satisfy the requirements of the above sub-rule and for that reason alone, this application must fail. It is dismissed with costs.