Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Civil Appeal 140 of 2010|
|Parties:||STANLEY NGEERA v SARAH KABURO MBUI & NAOMI MWENDWA MBUI|
|Date Delivered:||13 Apr 2011|
|Court:||High Court at Meru|
|Judge(s):||Mary Muhanji Kasango|
|Citation:||STANLEY NGEERA v SARAH KABURO MBUI & Another  eKLR|
Civil practice and procedure-stay-stay of execution-stay of execution pending appeal (Order 42) can only be in respect of the decree or order appealed from
|Disclaimer:||The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information|
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
Stanley Ngeera (appellant) has filed this appeal against the ruling delivered in Meru CMCC No. 68 of 2006 made on 30th November 2010. The appellant has filed Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2010. By that Notice of Motion brought under order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 the appellant seeks stay of execution of the lower court’s decree. The appellant does not, for reasons that will become obvious later on, states the date of that decree. Sarah Kaburo Mbui the 1st respondent in her replying affidavit stated that the judgment in Meru CMCC No. 68 of 2006 was delivered on 9th March 2010. No appeal was filed against that decree. That the respondents sought to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the appellant’s goods. An objection to the attachment was raised which objection stayed that execution. The appellant on obtaining that stay took no further action in the matter and the objection proceedings were also not prosecuted. When the respondent sought to execute the decree by issue of warrant of arrest of the appellant the appellant filed an application for review seeking to be allowed to re-open the case and to tender further evidence. That, it is the dismissal of that application that the appellant is appealing against in this appeal. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ondieki that the judgment which the respondent has sought to execute has not been appealed against and he argued that on that basis there cannot be stay of execution since there is no appeal against that decree. Order 42 rule 6 (1) indeed supports that submissions on behalf of the respondents. It provides as follows:-
From that rule, it is clear that stay can only be in respect of the order or decree which is appealed against. Perhaps to understand this better, I will say that even if the appellant does succeed in his present appeal, that success will not disturb the decree which the respondent wishes to execute. There is therefore no basis for the orders which are sought in the Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2010 and it is dismissed with costs being awarded to the respondent. The stay order issued on 9th December 2010 is hereby set aside and vacated.