[2015] KEHC 2459 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had filed the application for stay of execution within a reasonable time after judgment, as the delay of slightly over one month was not unreasonable given the need to engage a new advocate for the appeal. The applicant demonstrated that he had been in occupation of the suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2459 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Kiprotich Kenduywo; Defendant: Daniel Muchanga Nyukuri
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 59 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- stay of execution granted on condition of security
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Appeal 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
Richard Kiprotich Kenduywo
Plaintiff
Daniel Muchanga Nyukuri
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was filed without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had filed the application for stay of execution within a reasonable time after judgment, as the delay of slightly over one month was not unreasonable given the need to engage a new advocate for the appeal. The applicant demonstrated that he had been in occupation of the suit properties since 1988, had made substantial developments including permanent buildings, and would suffer substantial loss if evicted or if the buildings were demolished. The court held that these circumstances justified the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal, provided that the applicant deposited KES 100,000 as security for the due performance of the decree. The court thus...
Court Disposition
stay of execution granted on condition of security
Orders
- The applicant shall deposit KES 100,000 in court within seven days from the date of the ruling as security for due performance of the decree.
- If the security is not deposited within seven days, the stay orders will automatically lapse.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 59 OF 2013
RICHARD KIPROTICH KENDUYWO ….......................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DANIEL MUCHANGA NYUKURI................................. DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicant Daniel Muchanga Nyukuri filed a notice of Motion dated 19. 8.2015 in which he seeks order of stay of execution arising from a judgment delivered by this court on 7. 7.2015. The applicant contends that he has preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the said judgment.
The application was duly served upon the respondent who neither filed grounds of opposition nor replying affidavit. The applicant states that he has been on the suit lands since 1988 and has done substantial developments on the properties. He stays on one of the properties and has constructed rental houses on the other properties. He annexed photographs showing some permanent buildings. He therefore contends that he will suffer substantial loss if stay pending appeal is not granted.
I have considered the applicant's application as well as the annextures to the supporting affidavit. Under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure rules, an applicant is required to demonstrate that he has filed the application for stay without unreasonable delay. He has also to demonstrate that he will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted. Lastly an order for security for due performance from the decree as may ultimately be binding on him should be given.
In the instant case, the applicant has demonstrated that he has filed a notice of Appeal against the court's judgement. The judgement in this case was delivered on 7. 7.2015. The application for stay was made on 19. 8.2015. This is a period of slightly over one month. I do not find this delay to be unreasonable. The applicant had to engage the services of another lawyer for appeal purposes. This may have caused the little delay in bringing up this application.
The next issue for consideration is whether the applicant has demonstrated that he will suffer substantial loss. The applicant has stated that he has been on the suit lands since 1988. He has established a home on one of the properties and has put up rental premises on the other plots. He has annexed photographs of the houses which are permanent. It is clear that the applicant will suffer substantial loss if he is evicted and the permanent houses demolished. I therefore find that the applicant has demonstrated that he may suffer substantial loss should stay of execution be rejected.
This is a clear case where the applicant has to provide security. I order that the applicant do deposit in court a sum of kshs.100,000/= (One hundred thousand) within seven days from today failing which the stay orders will automatically lapse. Costs shall abide the results of the appeal.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 17th day of September 2015.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of M/S Arunga for applicant. Court Assistant - Winnie.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
17. 9.2015