Damaric Ventures Ltd v Kimwaka (Suing as Next Friend and Father to Susan Wanza Kitheka) (Civil Appeal E215 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 12349 (KLR) (16 October 2024) (Ruling)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 12349
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 12349 (KLR)
- Decided
- 16 October 2024
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppellant seeks stay of execution of a decree pending appealCoramFR OLEL
Holding
The court grants a stay of execution of the decree on condition that the Appellant deposits the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days.
Facts
Appellant is dissatisfied with the judgment and decree issued by the trial court, challenging both liability and quantum awarded. They seek to preserve the status quo and ensure the appeal is not rendered nugatory.
Issues
- Whether the Appellant has met the conditions necessary for the grant of stay pending appeal
- Whether the court should balance the interests of the Appellant and the Respondent
Reasoning
The court considers the likelihood of substantial loss and the security of the appeal, balancing the interests of the Appellant and the Respondent.
Outcome
The court grants the stay of execution of the decree.
Orders
- The Appellant must deposit the decretal sum of Kshs.515,625/= in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days
- If the Appellant fails to deposit the sum, the application shall be deemed dismissed with costs and the Respondent shall be at liberty to execute
Remedies
- Stay of execution of the decree
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Civil Procedure Act
- Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (6)
- Butt Vs Rent Tribunal (1982) KLR 417
- Suleiman vs Amboseli Resort Limited [2004] 2 KLR 589
- Attorney General Vs Halal Meat Produces Limited Civil Application No. Nairobi 270 of 2008
- Kenya Shell Ltd Vs Kibiru & another (Supreme)
- Mukuma Vs Abuoga (1988) KLR 645
- Court of Appeal in Nduhiu Gitahi Vs Warugongo (1988) KLR 621; IKAR 100;(1988-92) 2 KAR 100
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…