[2020] KEELC 1396 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1396 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate the substantial loss they would suffer if the stay of execution was not granted. While the application was filed without delay and the applicants expressed willingness to deposit security, the court was not satisfied that the threshold for granting a stay had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1396 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Timothy Marete Nchebere; Appellant: Another; Respondent: Japhet Bundi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Appeal 111 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Appeal Procedure, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance Appeal Procedure Land Disputes

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Marete Nchebere

Appellant

Another

Appellant

Japhet Bundi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated substantial loss that would result if stay of execution is not granted.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was brought without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have provided security for the due performance of the decree.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate the substantial loss they would suffer if the stay of execution was not granted. While the application was filed without delay and the applicants expressed willingness to deposit security, the court was not satisfied that the threshold for granting a stay had been met. The respondent's advanced age and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of his judgment were also considered. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion against granting the stay, dismissing the application with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 25.9.2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.