[2021] KEHC 6978 (KLR)
The court found that although there was a three-month delay in filing the application for stay, the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation—namely, the court file was missing and the Covid-19 pandemic restricted access to court records. The respondents did not controvert these facts. The court was satisfied...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6978 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Stanley Ng’ang’a Wainaina; Respondent: Elikanah Mutura Muchina (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of David Muchina Mutura, Deceased); Respondent: Moses Gachathi Matheri; Respondent: Joseph Kariuki Kamau (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Bernard Kamau Mugo, deceased)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E0380 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution granted.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Partnership Dissolution, Delay in Filing, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance
- 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
Stanley Ng’ang’a Wainaina
Appellant
Elikanah Mutura Muchina (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of David Muchina Mutura, Deceased)
Respondent
Moses Gachathi Matheri
Respondent
Joseph Kariuki Kamau (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Bernard Kamau Mugo, deceased)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to an order for stay of execution of the trial court's judgment pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for stay was excusable.
- 3 Whether the appellant demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although there was a three-month delay in filing the application for stay, the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation—namely, the court file was missing and the Covid-19 pandemic restricted access to court records. The respondents did not controvert these facts. The court was satisfied that the appellant would suffer substantial loss if the partnership was dissolved and the property potentially sold before the appeal was determined, as this would render the appeal nugatory. Given the nature of the dispute, the court held that it was not appropriate to require security for due performance, as the stay order itself would preserve the status quo and the suit...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution granted.
Orders
- An order for stay of execution of the decree of the trial court pending appeal is granted.
- Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. E0380 OF 2020
STANLEY NG’ANG’A WAINAINA..........................................APPELLANT
-VERSUS-
ELIKANAH MUTURA MUCHINA.................................1ST RESPONDENT
(Suing as the legal representative of the estate of
DAVID MUCHINA MUTURA (Deceased)
MOSES GACHATHI MATHERI....................................2ND RESPONDENT
JOSEPH KARIUKI KAMAU (Suing as the
Legal representative of the estate of
BERNARD KAMAU MUGO (deceased).......................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1) The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated 5/3/2021, in which the appellant substantially is seeking for an order forstay of execution of the judgment/decree of the trial court pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
2) The motion is supported by a supporting and further affidavitsworn by the appellant. The respondents filed the replyingaffidavit sworn by Joseph Kariuki Kamau to oppose theapplication.
3) Learned advocates appearing in this matter made oralsubmissions to support their positions.
4) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motionplus the facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support and against the motion. The appellant avers that the trial court proceeded to render a judgment dissolving the partnership with the respondents and that he is aggrieved with the trial court’sdecision hence this appeal.
5) It is argued that unless the decree of the trial court is stayedthe respondents are likely to have it executed and have thepartnership dissolved thus the appeal will be renderednugatory.
6) The respondents are of the submission that the learned trialmagistrate did not err in her finding that there was a partnership between the appellant and the respondents. The respondent pointed out that they produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of a partnership while the appellant failed to tender any documentary evidence.
7) The respondents further stated that the appellantmisrepresented facts to this court to obtain unmerited orders. They further pointed out that the application was filed after undue delay of three months.
8) In response, the appellant stated that the court file wentmissing and upon its discovery it took time for the proceedings to be typed. It was also stated by the respondents that due to the outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic, the physical file could not be accessed hence the delay.
9) The principles to be considered in an application for stay areclearly spelt out in Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.Firstan application for stay must be filed without unreasonable delay.Secondly, the applicant must show the substantial loss he would suffer if the order for stay is declined.Thirdly, the provision for security for the due performance of the decree should be taken into account.
10) On the first principle, it is not in dispute that there was adelay of three months from the date of judgment on the part of the applicant before filing the application for stay. However, the appellant offered reasons for the delay. First, it is stated that the court file could not be traced. Secondly, that due to the break out of Covid 19 pandemic, parties could not access the court’s physical file.
11) The respondents did not controvert the facts deponed by theappellant in the further affidavit. I am therefore convinced the cause for the delay was hence excusable.
12) In respect of the second principle, the appellant has statedthat he would suffer substantial loss if the partnership is dissolved pursuant to the decision of the trial court. I am convinced that if the partnership is dissolved, the partnership property may be sold thus making it out of reach for the parties thus rendering the appeal as nugatory.
13) The third and final principle is in respect of security. In thecircumstances of this dispute, it may not be appropriate to direct the appellant to provide security for the due performance of the decree. The order for stay in itself will preserve the status quo and the suit property pending appeal.
14) In the end, I find the motion dated 5/3/2021 to be meritorious.
Consequently, an order for stay of execution of the decree of the trial court pending appeal is granted. Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2021.
…….….…………….
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
…………………………………. for the Appellant/Applicant
…………………………………. for the 1st Respondent
…………………………………. for the 2nd Respondent