[2011] KEHC 2183 (KLR)
The application for stay of execution was made without delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted. The amount in question was not substantial, and there was no evidence or allegation that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2183 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Rukuriri Tea Growers Sacco Ltd; Respondent: Joseph Njiru Kanampiu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Embu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 63 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Ex Parte Judgment, Security for Decree, Substantial Loss, Appeal Rights
- 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
Rukuriri Tea Growers Sacco Ltd
Appellant
Joseph Njiru Kanampiu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss that would result if stay of execution is not granted.
- 2 Whether the application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether the applicant has offered adequate security for the due performance of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for stay of execution was made without delay, but the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted. The amount in question was not substantial, and there was no evidence or allegation that the respondent would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The applicant also failed to provide information regarding his means or offer adequate security for the due performance of the decree. The court, balancing the interests of both parties, found that the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT EMBU
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 63 OF 2011
RUKURIRI TEA GROWERS SACCO LTD …..................…… APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOSEPH NJIRU KANAMPIU ………………..................……….…………. RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
This is an application for stay of the execution of the decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal in which the applicant is challenging the ruling of the Co-operative Tribunal delivered on 18th May 2011 dismissing his application to set aside the ex-parte judgment given against him on 7th December 2010. He had sought in the application to be allowed the opportunity to file a defence. The respondent is in the process of executing against the applicant’s property. The value of the judgment is Kshs.162,934/17 plus the auctioneer’s costs which are estimated at kshs.40,000/=. The application has been made under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It was served but received no response.
There is no dispute that the application has been made without delay. Before making an order staying the execution of the judgment herein, the court has to be satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order was made. (New Stanley Hotel Limited versus Arcade Tobacconists Limited [1986] KLR 757). This is a money decree and the amount in question is not substantial. There was no allegation in the supporting affidavit that if stay is not granted and the appeal eventually succeeds the respondent will not be able to refund the decretal sum. (Nairobi City Council versus Quardroba Enterprises Ltd, Civil Application number Nai 95 of 2001). The consequences is that substantial loss has not been demonstrated.
The applicant swore that he will be ready to abide by any conditions that the court may impose. It is important to note that the court does not know the means of the applicant whose responsibility was to offer such security that will ultimately meet the decree.
It should be noted that in dealing with this kind of application the court has to balance the interests of the parties: the respondent has a judgment which he is entitled to execute whereas the applicant is exercising his right to appeal. Considering all the facts of this application I find that the same is not merited. It is hereby dismissed with costs.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 21ST DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE
In the presence of:- Mr. Mogusu for the Applicant.