SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Nganga v Higher Education Loans Board & 2 others (Constitutional Petition 91 of 2019) [2020] KEHC 10495 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (21 October 2020) (Ruling)

[2020] KEHC 10495 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
10495
Citation
[2020] KEHC 10495 (KLR)
Decided
21 October 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional PetitionPostureRespondent seeks stay of execution of judgment pending appealCoramJA Maka
Holding

Order a stay of execution of the judgment delivered herein on 15/10/2020 and all other orders consequential therefrom pending the hearing and determination of the appeal

Facts

Eunice Nganga won a judgment of Kshs.10,000,000 against Higher Education Loans Board and two other respondents. The respondents are dissatisfied and have appealed the judgment.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent has met the threshold for granting of order of stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 15th October 2020 and all other orders consequently therefrom pending hearing and determination of the appeal emanating therefrom.
  2. Whether Court should order security.

Reasoning

The court found that the application was within the timelines and that the respondent has met the threshold for granting the order of stay of execution of the judgment pending the appeal.

Outcome

Order granted

Orders

  • Order a stay of execution of the judgment delivered herein on 15/10/2020 and all other orders consequential therefrom pending the hearing and determination of the appeal

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Fundamental Freedoms Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (2)
  • Shah Munge & Partners Ltd v. National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 3 Others [2018] eKLR
  • Damji Pragji Mandavia v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (K) Ltd, Civil Application No. Nai 345 of 2004
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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case