[2020] KEHC 8668 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 8668 (KLR)

The court found that since judgment on liability was by consent and the appeal is only on quantum, there is no prejudice to the respondents if the applicant is allowed to enjoy a proportion of the decretal sum. The court held that sufficient reason had been shown to interfere with the previous orders. To balance the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 8668 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Solomon Kodhek Odembe; Appellant: Dismas Jerome Odhiambo Omongi; Respondent: Faith Kagonya
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 636 “B” of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Stay Orders Pending Appeal
Outcome
application allowed with orders as specified
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Stay of Execution Security for Decretal Sum

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Kodhek Odembe

Appellant

Dismas Jerome Odhiambo Omongi

Appellant

Faith Kagonya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Stay Orders Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient reason for review, setting aside, or modification of the orders granted on 3rd October, 2019.
  2. 2 Whether part of the decretal sum should be released to the applicant pending appeal on quantum.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents will suffer substantial loss if part of the decretal sum is released.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that since judgment on liability was by consent and the appeal is only on quantum, there is no prejudice to the respondents if the applicant is allowed to enjoy a proportion of the decretal sum. The court held that sufficient reason had been shown to interfere with the previous orders. To balance the interests of both parties and avoid rendering the appeal nugatory, the court ordered payment of 25% of the decretal sum to the applicant, 25% to be deposited in a joint interest earning account of the parties' counsel, and 50% as security in court, all to be complied with within 30 days.

Court Disposition

application allowed with orders as specified

Orders

  • 25% of the decretal sum to be paid to the applicant.
  • 25% of the decretal sum to be deposited in a joint interest earning bank account in the names of the respective counsel for the parties.