[2025] KEHC 8826 (KLR)
The court found that the purpose of the security deposit was to guarantee satisfaction of the decree in the event the appeal failed. Since the appellant had already paid the full decretal sum and auctioneer's costs following execution by the respondent, the security deposit was no longer necessary. The respondent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 8826 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Platinum Credit Limited; Respondent: Stephen Muthoka Malia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E164 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Discharge Stay and Release Security Deposit
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Stay of execution discharged. Security deposit to be released to appellant. Respondent to bear costs.
- Judges
- J Ngaah
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decree, Release of Deposit, Execution of Judgment
- 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
Platinum Credit Limited
Appellant
Stephen Muthoka Malia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Motion to Discharge Stay and Release Security Deposit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the stay of execution previously granted should be discharged as overtaken by events.
- 2 Whether the security deposit (half decretal sum) should be released to the appellant after full satisfaction of the decree.
- 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the purpose of the security deposit was to guarantee satisfaction of the decree in the event the appeal failed. Since the appellant had already paid the full decretal sum and auctioneer's costs following execution by the respondent, the security deposit was no longer necessary. The respondent did not dispute that the decree had been fully satisfied. Therefore, the stay of execution was discharged as overtaken by events, and the security deposit was ordered to be released to the appellant. The respondent was ordered to bear the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Stay of execution discharged. Security deposit to be released to appellant. Respondent to bear costs.
Orders
- The stay of execution granted on 24 June 2024 is discharged as overtaken by events.
- The sum of Kshs. 204,214 deposited in court as security is to be released to the appellant through its advocates unconditionally.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Platinum Credit Limited v Malia (Civil Appeal E164 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 8826 (KLR) (20 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 8826 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Mombasa
Civil Appeal E164 of 2024
J Ngaah, J
June 20, 2025
Between
Platinum Credit Limited
Appellant
and
Stephen Muthoka Malia
Respondent
Ruling
1. The application before court is a motion dated 25 September 2024 expressed to be brought under sections 1A, 1B and 3 of the Civil Procedure Act cap. 21; and, order 42 and order 51 Rules 1 and 3, and of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant seeks orders:1. That the court be pleased to issue an order that the stay of execution granted to the Appellant/Applicant by this Honourable Court on the 24th day of June 2024 be and is hereby discharged and/or overtaken by events.2. That as a consequence thereof, the sum of Kshs.204,214, being half the decretal sum in Mombasa SCCOMM E330 of 2024 between the same parties and deposited in court on 27th June 2024 be released to the Appellant herein through it advocates on record, Messrs M K Onsongo & Co. Advocates unconditionally.
2. The applicant also asked that the costs of the application be in the cause.The application is supported by the affidavit of Ms. Miriam Onsongo, the learned counsel for the applicant.
3. The background of the applicant’s application is that on 24 June 2024, this Honourable Court issued an order for stay of execution of the decree in Mombasa SCCOMM E330 of 2024 on condition that the Appellant deposits half the decretal sum in court within three days.
4. Despite the appellant complying with the court’s order, and depositing the sum of Kshs. 204,214 within the prescribed timeline, more particularly on 27 June 2024, the respondent through its agents, M/s Alfajiri Auctioneers, proceeded with the execution as a result of which the appellant settled the decretal sum in full together with the auctioneer’s costs. The appellant took this step because the goods that the auctioneers had removed from its premises contained the appellant’s client’s data which the appellant has described as “sensitive”.
5. Indeed, the record shows that this Honourable Court ordered the appellant to deposit half of the decretal sum in court as a condition for stay of execution of the decree obtained in the Small Claims Court. In compliance with the orders of the Court, the appellant deposited the amount of Kshs. 204,214. There is proof exhibited to Ms. Onsongo’s affidavit that subsequently, the respondent was paid the total decretal sum.
6. Although the respondent has opposed the application, he has not denied that decretal sum together with the auctioneers’ charges have been paid.
7. The deposit of half of the decretal sum was obviously made as security for satisfaction of the decree in the event the appeal fails. But the entire decretal amount having been paid, there is no reason for holding the security any longer. Accordingly, the applicant’s application dated 25 September 2025 is allowed. The respondent shall bear the costs of the application. Orders accordingly.
SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED ON 20 JUNE 2025NGAAH JAIRUSJUDGE