[2010] KEHC 202 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant complied with the stay order by depositing the sum of Kshs 700,000 within the stipulated time, as the order did not specify that the Kenya Shilling equivalent at the time of payment was required. The court noted that it was aware of possible exchange rate fluctuations when making...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 202 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: WILEX GMBH; Defendant: AFRO FOREX BUREAU LIMITED
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 253 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Judgment, Exchange Rate Fluctuation, Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
WILEX GMBH
Plaintiff
AFRO FOREX BUREAU LIMITED
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant complied with the court order to deposit security for stay of execution.
- 2 Whether execution proceedings commenced by the respondent were in breach of the court's stay order.
- 3 Whether the deposit made by the applicant satisfied the judgment sum in light of exchange rate fluctuations.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant complied with the stay order by depositing the sum of Kshs 700,000 within the stipulated time, as the order did not specify that the Kenya Shilling equivalent at the time of payment was required. The court noted that it was aware of possible exchange rate fluctuations when making the order but did not require the deposit to reflect the prevailing rate. Since the respondent did not request such a specification, and the deposit itself was not disputed, the execution proceedings were deemed unjustified and in breach of the court's order. The court annulled and struck out the execution proceedings, recognizing the stay order as subsisting until the...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Execution proceedings commenced by the respondent are annulled and struck out.
- Stay orders remain in force until determination of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 253 OF 2006
.WILEX GMBH...................................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
AFRO FOREX BUREAU LIMITED................................................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
The Applicant in the Chamber Summons dated 13th August, 2010, prays that this court makes orders staying the execution of the Judgment entered herein against it on 30th January, 2009, and that the execution proceedings commenced before the Deputy Registrar of the Court be set aside.
The application is premised on the grounds that the Respondent has, through auctioneers, commenced the execution process and has proclaimed against the applicants’ property, despite the fact that the execution of the judgment was, by an order of the court made on 24th July, 2009, stayed on condition that the applicant do deposit a sum of Euros 7,218. 53 within 30 days of the order which it did. Annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the Chamber Summons are copies of the order of 24th July, 2009 issued on 8th March, 2010. A copy of a court deposit receipt for Kshs 700,000/= dated 24th August, 2009, application for execution, warrant of attachment, the proclamation and related correspondence are also annexed to the Supporting Affidavit.
Opposing the application, the Respondents filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by one Gordon Ogado stating that the deposit of Kshs 700,000/=, though not disputed, was only partial since at the time the same was made the rate of exchange for the Euro as against the Kenya Shilling had escalated and that the Kenya Shilling equivalent of Euros 7,218. 53 at the date of the deposit was Kshs 795,624. 38/=.
I have considered the submissions made before me on 19th October, 2010, by learned counsel for the parties herein. I have perused the Plaint and the judgment of the Court and the subsequent orders made herein. The judgment clearly spelt out that a sum of Euros 7,218. 53 with interest at court rates was what was awarded to the Defendant/Respondent. The same sum was ordered to be deposited as security when granting the stay.
In making the order for stay and granting a 30 days period of compliance, the court was alive to the fact that the rate of exchange was likely to change, yet it did not order that the Kenya Shilling equivalent as at the time of payment be deposited. In my view, the court would have sated so if that was its intention. The Respondents did not request for an order in those terms either. One wonders what the scenario would have been had the exchange rate gone down.
Considering all the facts, I am persuaded that the applicant did comply with the orders of the Hon. Lady Justice Lesiit as recorded, since the deposit itself is not disputed. Having been made on 24th August, 2009, in compliance with the orders made on 24th July, 2009, I agree with counsel for the applicant that the deposit was made within time, as stipulated under Order XL1X Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
For all the above reasons I find that the execution herein cannot be justified and must be deemed to have been put in motion in breach of the orders of the court. The proceedings in relation thereto are hereby annulled and struck out. This court recognizes the stay orders as subsisting until the determination of the appeal.
Hence, the Chamber Summons dated 13th August, 2010, is hereby allowed with costs to the applicants.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 25THday of NOVEMBER, 2010
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Miss. MwauFor the Applicant
No appearanceFor the Respondent