[2011] KEHC 661 (KLR)
The court found that while the application for stay was made within a reasonable time, the applicant failed to satisfy the other two mandatory conditions for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal. Specifically, the applicant did not offer any security for the due performance of the decree and did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 661 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samuel Wanderi; Defendant: James Gichure Kiongo; Defendant: Rift Valley Enterprises Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 495 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- Judges
- MJA Emukule
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Conditions for Stay, Security for Due Performance, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Samuel Wanderi
Plaintiff
James Gichure Kiongo
Defendant
Rift Valley Enterprises Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether the applicant has offered sufficient security for the due performance of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the application for stay was made within a reasonable time, the applicant failed to satisfy the other two mandatory conditions for the grant of stay of execution pending appeal. Specifically, the applicant did not offer any security for the due performance of the decree and did not demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted. The applicant's possession of the title, which was obtained fraudulently, and the lack of evidence of potential loss further undermined the application. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for stay with costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The application dated 11th April 2011 and filed on 13th April 2011 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 495 OF 1998
SAMUEL WANDERI......................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES GICHURE KIONGO..............................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
RIFT VALLEY ENTERPRISES LTD.................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
By a Judgment delivered on 25th day of March 2011, I granted orders: -
(a)declaring the Respondent the absolute owner of the parcel of land known as Dundori/Mugwethi/Block 2/47,
(b) that the registration of the 1st Defendant as the proprietor be cancelled and replaced with that of the plaintiff, and
(c) the Defendants be jointly and severally condemned with costs of the suit.
Pursuant to the application under a Certificate of Urgency dated 11th April 2011 the Applicant(Defendant) sought a stay of that judgment. I granted the order, pending the hearing inter partes on 15th June 2011, Mr. Sanya counsel for the Plaintiff (Respondent) and Mrs Kereri counsel for the Applicant asked me to make a Ruling on the application for stay pending appeal.
The application is premised upon the provisions of Order 42, rule 6(1) and Order 50 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Order 50 rule I is a procedural order that all application except where otherwise provided shall be brought by of a Notice of Motion. Order 42 rule 6(1) provides for the substantive conditions for grant of a stay of execution pending appeal. The said rule provides that no appeal or second appeal operates as a stay, and empowers the court which granted the orders appealed against or the court appealed to grant a stay. The conditions for grant of stay are however set out in rule 6(2) and are these -
(1)that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order of stay is made;
(2) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay;
(3) that such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on the applicant has been given by him.
Judgment herein was delivered on 25th March 2011. The application for stay, was made on 13th April 2011, that is after approximately 21 days. It could have been made earlier, but the delay cannot be considered unreasonable.The condition to file an application for stay within reasonable time was therefore fulfilled. The applicant has however not fulfilled the other two conditions. The applicant has not offered any security to ensure that he will not sell the suit land. He has the title which as shown in the evidence of the Plaintiff(Respondent) he obtained fraudulently.The Respondent has in his Replying Affidavit stated the Market Value of the land as about Ksh 1. 0 million, and that the Applicant should provide that security.
As the Plaintiff is on the land, but has no title, the Applicant will not suffer any loss and has not demonstrated what loss he would suffer. The application fails on this ground too.
In conclusion, I see no substantive ground for granting a stay of the execution of the Judgment on 25th March 2011. The application dated 11th April, 2011 and filed on 13th April 2011 is therefore dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff(Respondent).
There shall be orders accordingly.
Dated, delivered and signed at Nakuru this 12th day of October, 2011
M. J. ANYARA EMUKULE
JUDGE