[2011] KEHC 81 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's informal application for stay was not made immediately after the delivery of the ruling enhancing maintenance, but rather after an unsuccessful application for the court's disqualification. The delay of nearly 11 days was deemed inordinate and not in conformity with the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 81 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: R.P.M; Respondent: P.K.M
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 154 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Ruling on Informal Application for Stay of Maintenance Order
- Outcome
- application for stay dismissed with costs to the applicant
- Judges
- D Schofield
- Legal Topics
- Maintenance Orders, Stay of Execution, Delay in Application, Discretion of Court
- 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
R.P.M
Applicant
P.K.M
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Informal Application for Stay of Maintenance Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the informal application for stay of the maintenance order was made without unreasonable delay.
- 2 Whether the circumstances justified the grant of a stay of execution of the maintenance order.
- 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause for the grant of stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's informal application for stay was not made immediately after the delivery of the ruling enhancing maintenance, but rather after an unsuccessful application for the court's disqualification. The delay of nearly 11 days was deemed inordinate and not in conformity with the requirements of Order 42 Rule 6(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court further held that there were no special circumstances or sufficient cause demonstrated to justify the grant of a stay. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed with costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application for stay dismissed with costs to the applicant
Orders
- The informal application for stay of the maintenance order is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the applicant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
[if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\"; mso-style-parent:\"\"; line-height:115%; font-size:11. 0pt;\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\"; mso-fareast-\"Times New Roman\"; mso-bidi-\"Times New Roman\";} </style> <![endif]
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
DIVORCE CAUSE NO. 154 OF 2008
R.P.M……………………...………………...…………………….. PETITIONER
VERSUS
P.K.M…………………………….………….………………… RESPONDENT
RULING
On 3rd November 2011 after the court had just delivered the Ruling declining to disqualify itself, Mr. E. Ondieki, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, informally applied for an order of stay of the earlier ruling delivered on 24. 10. 2011 in which the court enhanced maintenance from Shs.60,000/= to Shs.250,000/= per month.
Mrs. Judy Thongori, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, opposed the application. I reserved my ruling to today, 10th November 2011.
I have duly considered the application for stay and the opposition to it and the reasons advanced by each party which are recorded. The policy of the court in matters of stay of its own orders when an appeal is preferred against such orders is that, as a general Rule, the court will exercise its best discretion in a way so as not to prevent an appeal, if successful, from becoming nugatory. The court will normally grant stay where circumstances of the case so require.
The ruling in respect of which the order for stay is being sought was delivered on 24. 10. 2011. The Respondent through his counsel did not apply for stay after the delivery of the ruling on 24. 10. 2011 or soon thereafter. Instead he applied for the court to disqualify itself. The court declined to disqualify itself and rendered a decision to that effect in the ruling delivered on 3. 11. 2011.
The application for stay was made after the latter ruling. There is light shed by Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires that for stay to be granted, the court must be satisfied that there is sufficient cause and that the application for stay is made without unreasonable delay, and further that unless stay is granted, the Applicant may suffer substantial loss.
In this case, the Respondent took just about two weeks to apply informally for stay. Rule 6(5) of Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules reflects the need for the application for stay, if made informally, to be made immediately following delivery of ruling or judgment. A period of close to 11 days from 24. 10. 2011 to 3. 11. 2011 which the Respondent has taken cannot be said to be in conformity with Order 42 Rule 6(5). In any case, the delay of close to 11 days is inordinate. There was no seriousness in making the application which, prima facie, seems to have been prompted by the outcome of the application for disqualification.
It is my finding that the informal application was not made immediately after the delivery of the ruling on 24. 10. 2011. There was inordinate delay. The nature of the litigation does not give rise to any special circumstances so as to require the court to grant the order for stay. The application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated at Milimani Law Courts, Nairobi, this 10TH dayof November, 2011.
G.B.M. KARIUKI, SC
JUDGE
COUNSEL APPEARING
Mrs. J. Thongori, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. E. Ondieki, Advocate for the Respondent
Mr. D. Mutisya, Court Clerk