REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civ Appli 275 of 1993 (NAI 118/93UR) Spie Batignolles (K) Ltd………………………..APPLICANT Versus Stanley Aramis Kibet…………………...…..RESPONDENT RULING December 1, 1993, Cockar, Omolo and Tunoi JJ A delivered the following Ruling. Judgment was entered against the respondents by M Msagha J on 29 July, 1993 in the sum of Shs 4,152,640/=. The applicant’s application for stay of execution pending appeal lodged in the Superior Court was heard by the said judge on 22 nd October, 1993. He ordered inter alia that a sum of Shs 2,000,000/= be paid by the applicant to the respondent within 21 days and that the balance of the decretal amount be paid into an interest earning account opened in the joint names of the applicant’s and the respondent’s advocates. The applicant is aggrieved by the said order of the learned judge and avers that the respondent who is totally paralysed, unemployed and incapable of earning any income may not be able to repay the sum paid to him in the event of the appeal being successful. Considering all the particular circumstances of this case and the fact that the respondent needs some money for his medical expenses, we are of the view that he should have some amount of money paid to him for such purpose. This should be Shs 1,000,000/= which we think is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The balance of the decretal sum shall be paid into a joint interest bearing account in the names of the respondent’s and the applicant’s advocates. The cost of this application shall be in the appeal. The cheque for Shs 1,000,000/= shall be made out in the name of the respondent Stanley Aramis Kibet. December 1, 1993 Cockar, Omolo & Tunoi, JJ A
Original judgment
Spie Batignolles (K) Ltd v Stanley Aramis Kibet [1993] KECA 34 (KLR)
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.