[2003] KEHC 177 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 177 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for stay of execution under Order 41 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate that it would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, as mere errors in the decree or execution procedure do not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] KEHC 177 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Yellow Pages Publishing & Marketing Limited; Respondent: Newstrackers Publishers Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 498 of ??
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
JM Khamoni
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Costs

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yellow Pages Publishing & Marketing Limited

Appellant

Newstrackers Publishers Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Stay Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss as required for grant of stay of execution.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided security as required under Order 41 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for stay of execution under Order 41 Rule 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the applicant did not demonstrate that it would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, as mere errors in the decree or execution procedure do not suffice. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide security for the due performance of the decree, which is a mandatory requirement. Consequently, the application for stay was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application for stay is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.