[2022] KEELC 3336 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 3336 (KLR)

The court found that the appellants failed to file the application for stay of execution timeously, as it was only brought after execution commenced and a consent order was entered. No sufficient explanation was provided for the delay. The appellants did not demonstrate substantial loss, as they failed to show the respondent's inability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. While the appellants expressed willingness to provide security, all three conjunctive requirements for stay were not met. The court also held that the consent order could not be stayed in the absence of a challenge by review or setting aside, and the appellants' actions appeared to be an attempt to avoid...

Citation
[2022] KEELC 3336 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: David Kikwai Rono; Appellant: Amon Kimutai Rono; Respondent: Vincent Kebiro Ochera
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 July 2022
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 15 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
FO Nyagaka
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Consent Orders, Decretal Sum Enforcement, Land Sale Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Consent Orders Decretal Sum Enforcement Land Sale Disputes

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Kikwai Rono

Appellant

Amon Kimutai Rono

Appellant

Vincent Kebiro Ochera

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal was filed without unreasonable delay.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are willing to provide security for due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to file the application for stay of execution timeously, as it was only brought after execution commenced and a consent order was entered. No sufficient explanation was provided for the delay. The appellants did not demonstrate substantial loss, as they failed to show the respondent's inability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. While the appellants expressed willingness to provide security, all three conjunctive requirements for stay were not met. The court also held that the consent order could not be stayed in the absence of a challenge by review or setting aside, and the appellants' actions appeared to be an attempt to avoid...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 07/06/2022 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.