James Wanyoike t/a Promise (Mwanake Luxury) Coach & 2 others v Abdul (Civil Appeal E007 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 5913 (KLR) (27 May 2024) (Ruling)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 5913
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 5913 (KLR)
- Decided
- 27 May 2024
Summary at a glance
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment and order of the Lodwar High CourtCoramRN NYAKUNDI
The court granted the stay of execution pending appeal.
Facts
James Wanyoike t/a Promise (Mwanake Luxury) Coach and two other applicants appealed against a judgment and order of Kshs. 306,550 plus costs and interests, seeking a stay of execution pending appeal.
Issues
- Whether the applicants have met the conditions necessary to grant a stay pending appeal.
- Whether substantial loss may result to the applicants unless the order is made.
Reasoning
The court considered the principles of granting or refusing a stay of execution pending appeal and the applicants' claim of substantial loss.
Outcome
The court granted the stay of execution pending appeal.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of Kshs. 306,550 plus costs and interests pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-parties.
- Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of Kshs. 306,550 plus costs and interests pending the hearing and determination of LODWAR HCCA No. E007 of 2024.
- Allow the applicants to furnish the court with security in the form of a Bank guarantee from the Family Bank.
- Provide for the costs of this application.
Remedies
- Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of Kshs. 306,550 plus costs and interests pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-parties.
- Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of Kshs. 306,550 plus costs and interests pending the hearing and determination of LODWAR HCCA No. E007 of 2024.
- Allow the applicants to furnish the court with security in the form of a Bank guarantee from the Family Bank.
- Provide for the costs of this application.
Authorities cited
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Loading judgment…