[2023] KEELC 593 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 593 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution pending appeal was made without unreasonable delay and that there was a likelihood of substantial loss to the applicant if the orders were executed and the appeal subsequently succeeded. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of both parties:...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 593 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Prigal Limited; Applicant: Michael Mwangi Muturi; Respondent: Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd; Respondent: Eng. Anthony Wamukota
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Petition 4 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Conditional stay of execution granted pending appeal.
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum, Appeal Procedure, Substantial Loss, Consent Judgment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Decretal Sum Appeal Procedure Substantial Loss Consent Judgment

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prigal Limited

Applicant

Michael Mwangi Muturi

Applicant

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Ltd

Respondent

Eng. Anthony Wamukota

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether substantial loss will result to the applicant if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution pending appeal was made without unreasonable delay and that there was a likelihood of substantial loss to the applicant if the orders were executed and the appeal subsequently succeeded. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of both parties: the applicant's right to appeal and the petitioners' right to enjoy the fruits of the consent judgment. The consent judgment had not been set aside, and there was no indication of an intention to do so. Consequently, the court granted a conditional stay of execution pending appeal, requiring the appellant to deposit security equivalent to the decretal sum or, alternatively, to...

Court Disposition

Conditional stay of execution granted pending appeal.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the orders issued on January 19, 2023 is granted pending appeal, on condition that the appellant deposits in court security of the value of the decretal sum or pays half of the decretal sum.
  • No order as to costs.