[2019] KEHC 1392 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to annex the impugned ruling, thereby denying the court the opportunity to assess whether the interlocutory judgment was regular or whether the delay in defending the suit was explained. Consequently, the court could not fault the trial court's exercise of discretion in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1392 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Wilson Ochola Ongele; Respondent: Felix Otieno Oluoch; Respondent: Titus Ochieng Oduogi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 125 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Interlocutory Judgment, Setting Aside 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
Wilson Ochola Ongele
Appellant
Felix Otieno Oluoch
Respondent
Titus Ochieng Oduogi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay of Execution Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the trial court exercised its discretion properly in ordering deposit of the decretal sum as a precondition for setting aside the interlocutory judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to annex the impugned ruling, thereby denying the court the opportunity to assess whether the interlocutory judgment was regular or whether the delay in defending the suit was explained. Consequently, the court could not fault the trial court's exercise of discretion in ordering the deposit of the decretal sum as a precondition for setting aside the interlocutory judgment. The application for stay of execution was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 01st November, 2019 is disallowed with costs to the Respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU
(CORAM: CHERERE-J)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2019
BETWEEN
WILSON OCHOLA ONGELE...........................APPELLANT/APPLICANT
AND
FELIX OTIENO OLUOCH..............................................1STRESPONDENT
TITUS OCHIENG ODUOGI...........................................2NDRESPONDENT
RULING
1. By a notice of motion dated 01st November, 2019, and filed on4 th November, 2019, brought under Section 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Appellant/Applicant prays for orders THAT:
1) There be a stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree in NYANDO PMCC NO. 383 OF 2013 dated 12thOctober, 2019 pending the hearing and determination of this appeal
2) Costs be provided for
2. The application is based on the grounds among others that the Applicants’ are aggrieved by the court’s decision allowing their application dated 23. 08. 19 to set aside an interlocutory judgment on condition that they deposit the decretal sum of Kshs. 450,000/-.
3. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant on 01. 11. 19 in which he reiterates the grounds on the face of the application. Annexed to the affidavit is the decree in NYANDO PMCC NO. 383 OF 2013, notice of entry of judgment, bill of costs, certificate of urgency and notice of motion dated 23. 08. 19, the impugned order, memorandum of appeal, application for proceedings and the ruling and receipt in respect thereof marked WOO 1 toWOO 8 respectively.
4. The Respondents did not file a replying affidavit.
5. I have carefully considered the notice of motion vis a vis the supporting affidavit and the submissions filed on behalf of the both parties.
6. The Applicants have not annexed the impugned ruling and have therefore denied the court the opportunity to appreciate whether the interlocutory judgment that was set to be set aside was regular or not and whether the delay in defending the suit had been explained.
7. From the foregoing, I am incapable of faulting the discretion exercised by the trial court in ordering that the total decretal sum be deposited in court as a precondition for setting aside the interlocutory judgment.
8. In view of the foregoing, I find that the notice of motion dated
01st November, 2019, and filed on 04th November, 2019, has no merit and it is disallowed with costs to the Respondent.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU THIS 10th DAY OF December 2019
T.W. CHERERE
JUDGE
Read in open court in the presence of-
Court Assistant -
For Appellant/Applicant -
For the Respondents -