[2019] KEELC 3950 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3950 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants' application for stay of execution was premature because the only executable order was for costs, which had not yet been assessed by the lower court. The appellants had not demonstrated that they would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, nor had they provided security...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3950 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Peter Kyalo Mutua, Nzioki Wilson Ndutu, Daniel Mulandi Kikunze, Julius Kioko Wambua, Rosemary K. Mutunga (Suing as trustees for themselves and other beneficiaries of Athi River Slum Dwellers); Respondent: Akiba Mashinani Trust
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 14 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application struck out with costs
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Assessment of Costs, Title Deed Release
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Security for Costs Assessment of Costs Title Deed Release

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Kyalo Mutua, Nzioki Wilson Ndutu, Daniel Mulandi Kikunze, Julius Kioko Wambua, Rosemary K. Mutunga (Suing as trustees for themselves and other beneficiaries of Athi River Slum Dwellers)

Appellant

Akiba Mashinani Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants have demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants have provided sufficient security for the due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants' application for stay of execution was premature because the only executable order was for costs, which had not yet been assessed by the lower court. The appellants had not demonstrated that they would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, nor had they provided security for the due performance of the decree as required by law. Since there was no positive order to be stayed except for costs, and the costs had not been assessed, the application lacked merit and was struck out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 22nd June, 2018 is struck out with costs to the respondent.