[2002] KEHC 805 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 805 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant failed to provide the lower court's proceedings and judgment, making it impossible to determine whether the appeal was arguable. The applicant also failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum or that the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. However, the court exercised its discretion to grant a conditional stay of execution, requiring the decretal amount to be deposited in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which execution would proceed. Costs of the application were awarded to the respondent.

Citation
[2002] KEHC 805 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Richfield Engineering Ltd; Respondent: Haraka Engineering Works
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 October 2002
Case Number
? 104 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Conditional stay of execution granted.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Monetary Decree, Security for Stay, Substantial Loss, Arguable Appeal
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Monetary Decree Security for Stay Substantial Loss Arguable Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Richfield Engineering Ltd

Appellant

Haraka Engineering Works

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the appeal is arguable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to provide the lower court's proceedings and judgment, making it impossible to determine whether the appeal was arguable. The applicant also failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted, as there was no evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum or that the applicant would suffer irreparable loss. However, the court exercised its discretion to grant a conditional stay of execution, requiring the decretal amount to be deposited in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which execution would proceed. Costs of the application were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Conditional stay of execution granted.

Orders

  • Decretal amount of KSh.141,600 to be deposited in an interest earning bank account in the joint names of the advocates for both parties within 30 days.
  • Stay of execution granted pending appeal, conditional on compliance with the deposit requirement.