[2004] KECA 77 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicants had demonstrated an arguable appeal, particularly on the issue of whether the respondent had title to pass to them. The Court further held that the appeal could be rendered nugatory if a stay was not granted, as the respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum was unproven and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KECA 77 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Tropical Institute of Community Health & Development Registered Trustees; Applicant: Dr. Dan Clement Owino Kaseje; Applicant: Rt. Rev. Francis Mwai Abiero; Applicant: Rev. Mutava Musyimi; Applicant: Rt. Rev. Joseph Otieno Wasonga; Applicant: Rt. Rev. Haggai Nyang; Applicant: Dr. Richard Muga; Applicant: Mrs. Penina Ocholla Odhiambo; Applicant: Dr. Nyambura Githangui; Respondent: Paramount Investments Ltd.
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 316 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
- Outcome
- Conditional stay of execution granted.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum, Arguable Appeal, Nugatory Appeal, Joint Account Deposit
- 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
Tropical Institute of Community Health & Development Registered Trustees
Applicant
Dr. Dan Clement Owino Kaseje
Applicant
Rt. Rev. Francis Mwai Abiero
Applicant
Rev. Mutava Musyimi
Applicant
Rt. Rev. Joseph Otieno Wasonga
Applicant
Rt. Rev. Haggai Nyang
Applicant
Dr. Richard Muga
Applicant
Mrs. Penina Ocholla Odhiambo
Applicant
Dr. Nyambura Githangui
Applicant
Paramount Investments Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated an arguable appeal warranting a stay of execution.
- 2 Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicants should provide security for the decretal sum as a condition for stay.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicants had demonstrated an arguable appeal, particularly on the issue of whether the respondent had title to pass to them. The Court further held that the appeal could be rendered nugatory if a stay was not granted, as the respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum was unproven and unchallenged. Balancing the interests of both parties, the Court ordered a conditional stay of execution, requiring the applicants to deposit the decretal sum in a joint account held by the advocates for both parties within thirty days. Failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of the application for stay. If the deposit is made, the stay remains in force pending...
Court Disposition
Conditional stay of execution granted.
Orders
- Applicants to deposit the decretal sum of Kshs. 3,583,125 in a joint account in a reputable bank in the names of the respective advocates within thirty (30) days.
- If the deposit is not made within thirty days, the application for stay stands dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI, & O’KUBASU JJ.A)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI. 316 OF 2004 (164/04 UR)
BETWEEN
1. TROPICAL INSTITUTE OF COMMUNITY HEALTH & DEVELOPMENT REGISTERED TRUSTEES
2. DR. DAN CLEMENT OWINO KASEJE
3. RT. REV. FRANCIS MWAI ABIERO
4. REV. MUTAVA MUSYIMI
5. RT. REV. JOSEPH OTIENO WASONGA
6. RT. REV. HAGGAI NYANG
7. DR. RICHARD MUGA
8. MRS. PENINA OCHOLLA ODHIAMBO
9. DR. NYAMBURA GITHANGUI……………...……APPLICANTS
AND
PARAMOUNT INVESTMENTS LTD. ………..…… RESPONDENT
(An application for stay of execution in an intendedappeal from Judgment and Orders of the High Court at Nairobi (Kasango AG. J.) dated 30 th Septembe r 2004
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 1667 OF 2001) ******************************
RULING OF THE COURT
We are prepared to assume in favour of the applicants, and we do so, that they have an arguable appeal. The applicants are saying, for example, that the respondent had no title to pass to them. That is an arguable point. It is to be remembered that an arguable appeal does not mean an appeal that will succeed. It is simply an appeal which is not frivolous.
On the issue of whether or not the appeal will be rendered nugatory if we do not grant a stay the applicants have sworn through Mr. Obura that they fear the respondent might not be able to refund the decretal sum if it was paid over to it and the appeal succeeded in the end. The respondent has not found it fit to make any answer to this and Mr. Thangei for the respondent is unable to tell us the resources of the respondent.Mr. Obura for the applicants tells us they are prepared to deposit the money in a joint account. Weighing the interests of each side, we grant an order of stay on condition that the applicants shall, within thirty (30) days of the date hereof deposit in a joint account in a reputable bank, the account to be in the names of the respective advocates for the parties, the decretal sum of Kshs.3,583,125/-. If that is not done within the stated period the application for stay shall stand dismissed with costs. But if the money is so deposited then there shall be a stay of execution until the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, and the costs of the motion shall be in the appeal. Those are our orders.
Dated at Nairobi this 20th day of December, 2004.
R.S.C. OMOLO
……………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.K. TUNOI
…………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E.O. O’KUBASU
…………………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is
a true copy of the original
DEPUTY REGISTRAR.