Julius v Motrex Limited & another (Civil Application E091 of 2024) [2025] KECA 895 (KLR) (23 May 2025) (Ruling)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- 895
- Citation
- [2025] KECA 895 (KLR)
- Decided
- 23 May 2025
The applicant's motion is dismissed as he has failed to satisfy the conjunctive limbs of the twin principles for grant of the stay orders sought under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of this Court.
Facts
The High Court ordered the applicant to pay Kshs. 4,949,318.56 to the 1st respondent, Motrex Limited, following an accident involving the applicant's vehicle and the 1st respondent's vehicle. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal and a consent order was made granting him sixty days to file the Record of Appeal.
Issues
- Whether the appeal is arguable
- Whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if granted
- Whether the amount involved is colossal and there is no guarantee the 1st respondent will be able to refund the amounts paid
Reasoning
The court found the issues not triable or idle and that the appeal is arguable. However, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory or that the amount involved is colossal.
Outcome
The applicant's motion is dismissed.
Orders
- The application for stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the High Court is dismissed.
- The costs in the appeal are awarded to the 1st respondent.
Authorities cited
Cases cited (3)
- Trust Bank Limited and Another v Investech Bank Limited and 3 Others [2000] eKLR
- Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v. Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR
- Multimedia University & Another v Professor Gitile N. Naituli [2014] eKLR
Loading judgment…