Please Wait. Searching ...
Kiprop v Akinyi (Civil Appeal E173 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 343 (KLR) (27 January 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2023] KEHC 343 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Civil Appeal E173 of 2022
RN Nyakundi, J
January 27, 2023
Between
Abel Kiplimo Kiprop
Appellant
and
Pamela Akinyi
Respondent
(Being an Appeal from the judgment and decree of Hon. T.Mbugua(RM) delivered on the 28th day of October 2022 in Eldoret SCCC No. E150 of 2022 between Pamela Akinyi and Abel Kiplimo Kiprop)
Ruling
1.Before me for determination is the applicant’s notice of motion dated November 24, 2022 and filed in court on 1/1/2022 seeking the following orders: -1.Spent.2.Spent.3.That there be stay of execution of the judgment and decree of Kshs.206,000/=plus assessed costs and interest delivered in Eldoret SCCC No. E150 of 2022; Pamela Akinyi Vs. Abel Kiplimo Kiprop pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes.4.That as a condition of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of this appeal, the appellant/Applicant be and is hereby ordered to provide/issue security for the entire decretal sum/amount in the form of a Bank Guarantee to be issued by Family Bank Limited.5.That the costs of this application be provided for.
2.The application is premised on the grounds therein and is further supported by the affidavit sworn by Abel Kiplimo Kiprop, the applicant on 24/11/2022.
The Applicant’s case
3.The applicant case is that on 28/10/2022, judgment was delivered in favour of the respondent in Eldoret SCCC No.150 of 2022 where by the respondent was awarded Kshs.200,000/= as general damages, Kshs.6,000 as special damages plus costs and interests thereon.
4.Aggrieved by the said judgment the applicant has since lodged an appeal on the issue of both liability and quantum.
5.The applicant contended that the financial ability is unknown and thus in the event the appeal succeeds then the likelihood of the respondent to refund the decretal amount is unknown. The applicant is apprehensive that he stands to suffer substantial loss and that the appeal is likely to be rendered nugatory if stay orders are not issued.
6.The applicant is willing and ready to offer security in the form of a Bank Guarantee issued by Family Bank Limited.The application is unopposed.
Determination
7.I have considered the application for stay, grounds thereof, supporting affidavit and annexures. The main issue for determination is whether the applicant has demonstrated that the orders of stay of execution pending appeal are merited.
8.The principles guiding the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal are well settled. These principles are provided for under order 42rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 which stipulates as follows: -No appeal or second appeal shall operate as a stay of execution or proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except in so far as the court appealed from may order but, the court appealed from may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree or order, and whether the application for such stay shall have been granted or refused by the court appealed from, the court to which such appeal is preferred shall be at liberty, on application being made, to consider such application and to make such order thereon as may to it seem just, and any person aggrieved by an order of stay made by the court from whose decision the appeal is preferred may apply to the appellate court to have such order set aside.No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1)unless—(a)the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and(b)such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.
9.The power of the court to grant stay of execution pending appeal is a discretionary.
10.Further to the above, stay may only be granted for sufficient cause and that the court in deciding whether or not to grant the stay and that in light of the overriding objective stipulated in sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, the court is no longer limited to the foregoing provisions. The courts are now enjoined to give effect to the overriding objective in the exercise of its powers under the Civil Procedure Act or in the interpretation of any of its provisions.
11.Under section 1B some of the aims of the said objective are; the just determination of the proceedings; the efficient disposal of the business of the court; the efficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources; and the timely disposal of the proceedings, and all other proceedings in the court, at a cost affordable by the respective parties.
12.Therefore, an applicant for stay of execution of a decree or order pending appeal is obliged to satisfy the conditions set out in order 42 rule 6(2), aforementioned: namely (a) that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made, (b) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and (c) that such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on the applicant has been given. (See Vishram Ravji Halai vs. Thornton & Turpin Civil Application No. Nai. 15 of 1990 [1990] KLR 365.)
13.As to what substantial loss is, it was observed in James Wangalwa & another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto [2012] eKLR, that:
14.The applicant herein is apprehensive that the respondent would not be a position to refund the decretal amount in the event that the appeal succeeds and thus he would suffer substantial loss. Unfortunately, this instant application is undefended and thus the court cannot establish whether the respondent would be in a position to refund the decretal amount in the event the appeal succeeds.
15.The applicant on the other hand is willing and ready to furnish the court security in the form of a Bank Guarantee issued by Family Bank Limited.
16.This application was timeously filed. Having carefully considered the instant application, the court finds and holds that the applicant has met the threshold to warrant the court exercise of its discretion in its favour.
17.In the end the notice of motion dated November 22, 2022, is found to be meritorious. It is allowed. Consequently, an order for stay of execution pending appeal is granted on condition that the appellant applicant provides a Bank Guarantee from a reputable bank as security for the decretal sum pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. In default the stay order shall automatically lapse.
18.The guiding principles attendant on the exercise of a courts discretion as laid out in the above cases tilts in favour of the applicant. As observed from the perspective of the respondent’s , it is evidence that no effort was made to deconstruct the remedies sought by the applicant. Therefore, she walks out of this court without any relief.
19.It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY , 2023.R. NYAKUNDIJUDGE
