[2018] KEELRC 1348 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1348 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for grant of stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted, did not act without unreasonable delay, and did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1348 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Solomon Kiige Ngecha; Respondent: Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1921 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Setting Aside of Warrants of Attachment
Outcome
application dismissed; execution to proceed
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Warrants of Attachment, Taxation of Costs, Delay in Application, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Warrants of Attachment Taxation of Costs Delay in Application Security for Due Performance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Kiige Ngecha

Claimant

Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Setting Aside of Warrants of Attachment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the decree pending determination of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the warrants of attachment and execution proceedings should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for grant of stay under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for grant of stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted, did not act without unreasonable delay, and did not offer any security for the due performance of the decree. The court also noted that the applicant had not filed an appeal or sought stay orders after the main judgment, and that the grounds advanced related only to costs and not to the merits of the judgment. Consequently, the application was found to be unmerited and was dismissed, allowing execution to proceed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; execution to proceed

Orders

  • The application dated 23/4/2018 is dismissed.
  • Execution to proceed.