[2000] KECA 155 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated that its intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution was not granted, given the respondent's apparent inability to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. The respondent did not provide evidence of means to refund the money, and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 155 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Thabiti Insurance Brokers Ltd.; Respondent: Joseph Ogero Obonyo
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 102 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Security for Judgment
- 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
Thabiti Insurance Brokers Ltd.
Applicant
Joseph Ogero Obonyo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant's intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the respondent would be able to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant had demonstrated that its intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution was not granted, given the respondent's apparent inability to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. The respondent did not provide evidence of means to refund the money, and the record showed financial difficulties. The Court therefore exercised its discretion to grant a stay of execution, subject to the condition that the prohibitory order over the applicant's property remain in force as security.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed with conditions.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the superior court's judgment granted pending appeal.
- The prohibitory order over Land Parcel No. 330/1142 in Nairobi to remain in force as security.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: GICHERU, OMOLO & KEIWUA, JJ.A. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 102 OF 2000 (UR 50/00)
BETWEEN
THABITI INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. ........................ APPLICANT
AND
JOSEPH OGERO OBONYO ................................... RESPONDENT
(An application for stay of execution from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Wambilyangah J) dated 12th October, 1999
in H.C.C.C. NO. 140 OF 1997) *****************
RULING OF THE COURT
This is an application for the stay of the judgment of the superior court made at Kisumu on 12th October, 1999. By that judgment, Thabiti Insurance Brokers, the applicant, was ordered to pay to Joseph Ogero Obonyo, the respondent, the sum of K.Shs.1,561,500/= together with costs and interest. It is clear from the record before us that the respondent has been attempting to enforce that judgment and according to the proclamation of attachment dated 30th March, 2000 by M/s Legacy Auctioneering Services, the sum then outstanding was K.Shs.2,089,442/= excluding the costs of the auctioneer. The applicant intends to appeal against the judgment of the superior court and it filed a notice of appeal on 22nd October, 1999. The applicant having filed a notice of appeal, it is entitled to come to this Court for a stay of the superior court's judgment.
Mr Odunga who opposed the application on behalf of the respondent, agreed with Mr Ocharo for the applicant, that the applicant has an arguable appeal. We agree with them and we do not have to consider that issue. The only point left to us to consider is whether the applicant's intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if we do not grant a stay to the applicant. We think there is substance in the applicant's contention that if the money is paid out to the respondent, he might not be in a position to refund if he were to be required to do so. As far as we can gather from the record before us, the only business the respondent was engaged in was that of transportation. That business collapsed due to the accident which led to this litigation, of course assuming at this stage that there was in fact an accident as the respondent had contended before the trial Judge. The record also tends to show that the respondent had considerable difficulties in paying relatively small sums of money, assuming further that he did pay them. In the applicant's supporting affidavit, it was specifically averred that if execution of the decree were to be allowed to proceed, the appeal would be rendered nugatory. In his replying affidavit the respondent has not attempted to show that he would be able to refund the decretal sum if he were required to do so. We accordingly allow this application and order a stay of the superior court's judgment but on condition that the prohibitory order made by the superior court against the applicant's property registered as Land Parcel No. 330/1142 in Nairobi shall continue to be in force. The costs of this motion shall be in the appeal.
Those shall be the orders of the Court.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of May, 2000.
J. E. GICHERU
---------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
R. S. C. OMOLO
---------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
M. KEIWUA
---------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a
true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR