Nyang’au v Choi & 2 others (Civil Appeal E088 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 3015 (KLR) (2 June 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2022] KEHC 3015 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Civil Appeal E088 of 2021
JN Kamau, J
June 2, 2022
Between
Victor Manyisa Nyang’au
Appellant
and
Edinah Bonareri Choi
1st Respondent
Jeremiah Ongeri Samba
2nd Respondent
Keith Samba
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1.In his Notice of Motion dated 19th November 2021 and filed on 22nd November 2021, the Appellant herein sought an order for stay of execution of the judgment/ decree in Nyamira CMCC No 50 of 2020 that was delivered on 8th November 2021 pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.
2.He further sought an order that he does provide sufficient security in the form of a suitable Bank Guarantee from a reputable financial institution to secure the decretal sum of Kshs 157,050/=.
3.In his Affidavit that he swore in support of the application on 19th November 2021, he contended that he was aggrieved by the entire judgment of the Learned Trial Magistrate and had instructed his advocates to appeal against the same. He stated that he had an arguable appeal which had a high chance of success.
4.He was apprehensive that the 1st Respondent was a person of straw and if he paid her the decretal sum and he was successful on appeal, he would not be able to recover the same from her. He was also concerned that if she executed against him, it would render the present application and his Appeal nugatory.
5.He further averred that his Insurer, M/S Directline Assurance Limited, was willing, ready and able to furnish security in form of a bank guarantee and thus urged this court to allow his application.
6.In opposition to the said Application, on 25th November 2021, the 1st Respondent herein swore a Replying Affidavit. The same was filed on 29th November 2021. She deponed that the application was incurably defective, incompetent and an abuse of court process and ought to be dismissed. She averred that it was trite law that a successful party was entitled to remedies lawfully due to him/her pursuant to a court decision competently made at any stage of legal proceedings.
7.She stated that the Appellant had not satisfied the conditions as required under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and was therefore not deserving of the orders he sought. She pointed out that the Appeal he lodged was devoid of real triable issues and an afterthought whose sole intention was to delay the legitimate enjoyment of the fruits of her lawful judgment.
8.She was emphatic that it was not for him to dictate to this court the form of security that would be sufficient for the ultimate satisfaction of the decree. She opposed the facility of Bank Guarantee that he proposed for the reason that Directline Assurance Company Limited had a multifarious number of unpaid claims wherein it had offered bank guarantees as security hence a bank guarantee as security of her decree was unsafe and not reliable in the circumstances. She proposed that if he was desirous of prosecuting his appeal, he should be ordered to pay half (1/2) of the decretal sum and party and party costs and then deposit the other half (1/2) in a joint interest earning account to be opened in the names of the advocates of both parties. She added that she was willing and able to refund the decretal sum in the unlikely event that the Appeal herein succeeded. She thus urged this court to dismiss the Appellant’s present application with costs to her.
9.The Appellant’s Written Submissions were dated 4th December 2021 and filed on 14th December 2021 while those of the Respondent were dated 10th February 2022 and filed on 11th February 2022.
10.The Ruling herein is based on the said Written Submissions which parties relied upon in their entirety.
Legal Analysis
11.Both parties were agreed on the three (3) pre-requisite conditions that had to be met before an order for stay of execution could be granted. In support of the ground that the application herein had been filed without delay, the Appellant relied on the case of Halai &Another vs Thorton & Turpin (1963) Ltd [1990] KLR 365 that was cited in the Elena Doudoladava Korir vs Kenyatta University [2014] KLR where the Court of Appeal reiterated the aforesaid three (3) prerequisite conditions.
12.He also relied on the case of Kenya Orient Insurance Co Ltd vs Paul Mathenge Gichuki & Another [2014] eKLR to argue that the burden of proof shifted to a respondent where an appellant stated that it was unaware of the respondent’s resources.
13.He persuaded this court that in the event it disallowed the furnishing of a bank guarantee as security, then it should order that the entire decretal sum be deposited into court as the process of opening a joint interest earning account was time consuming. In this respect, it placed reliance on the case of Shanzu Beach Resort vs Crown Marble and Quartz [2020] eKLR. It did not, however, set out what the holding of that case was.
14.In arguing that the Appellant had not met the threshold of being granted an order for stay of execution, the 1st Respondent relied on the case of Kenya Shell Ltd vs Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & Another [1986] eKLR and Joseph Gachie t/a Joska Metal Works vs Sion Ndeti Muema [2012] eKLR where the holdings were that an order for stay of execution will not be granted if there was no evidence of substantial loss.
15.She also relied on the case of Mwaura Karuga t/a Limit Enterprises vs Kenya Bus Service Ltd & 4 Others [2015] eKLR amongst other cases to argue that a successful litigant was entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgment. She therefore reiterated that the Appellant ought to be ordered to pay half (1/2) of the decretal sum and party and party costs and then deposit the other half (1/2) in a joint interest earning account to be opened in the names of the advocates of both parties pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal herein.
16.The present application was brought under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 which empowers a court to stay execution of its own orders or an appeal court to stay orders from the court whose decision was being appealed from.
17.Under the said Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, an applicant has to demonstrate the following:-a.That substantial loss may result unless the order is made.b.That the application has been made without unreasonable delay.c.Such security as the court orders for the due performance of the decree has been given by the applicant.
18.The three (3) conditions for the grant of an order for stay of execution must be met simultaneously as they are conjunctive and not disjunctive.
19.This court noted that the 1st Respondent was really not vehemently opposed to the said application as she indicated that in the event that the court was inclined to allow the present application, then the Appellant ought to be ordered to pay half (1/2) of the decretal sum and party and party costs and then deposit the other half (1/2) in a joint interest earning account to opened in the names of the advocates of both parties.
20.On the other hand, the Appellant was agreeable to depositing the entire decretal sum in court in the event the court found the issuing of a bank guarantee not to be suitable security for the due performance of the decree herein.
21.The above notwithstanding and for completeness of record, this court nonetheless determined that the present application was filed without delay. The decision the Appellant intended to appeal against was delivered on 8th November 2021 and the application herein was filed on 22nd November 2021.
22.Although the decretal sum was not colossal, this court was persuaded to find and hold that there was likelihood that the Appellant would suffer substantial loss if he paid the 1st Respondent the decretal sum and he succeeded on appeal. Notably, she did not file an Affidavit of Means to demonstrate her ability to refund the monies. The Appellant had thus met the first two (2) condition for being granted an order for stay of execution.
23.Whereas he had also met the third condition of being granted an order for stay of execution, this court took the view that security in the form of a bank guarantee was not suitable. There was a possibility of a bank that had given a bank guarantee not honouring the same. Not being a party to a suit would make it difficult for a successful party to enforce any orders he or she might get concerning such a bank guarantee. This court therefore determined that the security to be furnished herein would be in form of money.
Disposition
24.For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s ruling was that the Appellant’s Notice of Motion application dated 10th November 2021 and filed on 22nd November 2021 was merited and the same be and is hereby allowed in terms of Prayer No (3) therein on the following conditions: -1.That there shall be a stay of execution of Judgment that was delivered by Hon W.C.Waswa (RM) on 8th November 2021 in Nyamira Civil Suit No 50 of 2020 Edinah Bonareri Choi vs Jeremiah Ongeri Samba & Others pending the hearing and determination of the appeal on condition the Appellant shall deposit into court the sum of Kshs 157,050/= within thirty (30) days from the date of this Ruling.2.For the avoidance of doubt, in the event, the Appellant shall default on Paragraph 24(1) hereinabove, the conditional stay of execution shall automatically lapse.3.The Appellant be and is hereby directed to file and serve his Record of Appeal within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Ruling.4.This matter will be mentioned on 21st September 2022 to confirm compliance and/or for further orders and/or directions.5.Costs of the application herein shall be in the cause.6.Either party is at liberty to apply.
25.It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022J. KAMAUJUDGE