[2007] KEHC 2953 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 2953 (KLR)

The court found that while the appeal raised arguable points, the applicant failed to demonstrate what substantial loss he would suffer if the stay was not granted. The absence of proof of substantial loss was fatal to the application. The court also held that the offer for security need not be in writing, but since...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 2953 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Peter Sutherland Hutchence; Respondent: Renate Walter Hutchence
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 February 2007
Case Number
Civil Appeal 110 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Maintenance Orders, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Matrimonial Causes
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Family and Children Stay of Execution Maintenance Orders Security for Due Performance Substantial Loss Matrimonial Causes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Peter Sutherland Hutchence

Appellant

Renate Walter Hutchence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the offer for security must be made in writing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the appeal raised arguable points, the applicant failed to demonstrate what substantial loss he would suffer if the stay was not granted. The absence of proof of substantial loss was fatal to the application. The court also held that the offer for security need not be in writing, but since the primary requirement of demonstrating substantial loss was not met, the application for stay could not succeed. The ability to provide security alone is insufficient without evidence of likely substantial loss.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The motion for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondent.