MATHENGE MULONZYA & 3 OTHERS v TIKU KITHEKA [2008] KEHC 3018 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 3018
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3018 (KLR)
- Decided
- 18 April 2008
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppellants/Applicants seek to stay the execution of a decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.CoramISAAC LENAOLA
Holding
The application is dismissed as it lacks evidence of substantial loss and the delay in filing the application is inordinate.
Facts
The appellants were ordered to pay a sum of Kshs. 41,000 in a decree, and they sought to stay the execution of the decree due to the risk of substantial loss if the decree was enforced.
Issues
- Whether the application for stay of execution is frivolous and has high chances of success.
- Whether the application was brought without undue delay.
- Whether substantial loss will result to the appellants if the decree is enforced.
Reasoning
The court found that the appellants did not show evidence of substantial loss and the delay in filing the application was inordinate, thus the application is dismissed.
Outcome
Application dismissed
Orders
- Order for stay of execution of the decree is dismissed
Authorities cited
Cases cited (3)
- Thugge vs Kenya Commercial Bank (1990) KLR 437
- Lalji Bhimji Sanghani Contractors Ltd vs Nairobi Golf Hotels (K) Ltd Nairobi (1990/1995)
- O.M.Costa Luis vs Nova Chemicals Ltd (HCCC 31/2001 (Nairobi))
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Loading judgment…