REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2017 STEPHEN KAMAU KIMINDA........................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS EWN (Minor Suing through the father and the next friend JNN)...RESPONDENT RULING The Respondent herein was the Plaintiff in CMCC. NO. 6697 of 2003 wherein she had sued Kenya Power and Lighting Company together with the Appellant. A judgment was delivered on 25 th November, 2008 apportioning liability between the two defendants. Kenya Power & Lighting Company settled their part of the decree leaving the Appellant‘s proportionate part of the decree unsettled. The Appellant lodged an appeal against the decision which appeal was later on dismissed for want of prosecution. After the dismissal, the Appellant did not settle his part of the decree. Being aggrieved by the Appellant’s failure to settle his part of the decretal amount, the Respondent moved the lower court and applied for his committal to civil jail and a ruling was delivered on 29th May, 2017 Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant filed the instant application seeking orders that he be granted leave to file this appeal and the appeal be deemed as filed. The Appellant also seeks a prayer that there be a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal and the Appellant be allowed to liquidate the decretal amount by way of installments. In an affidavit sworn by STEPHEN KAMAU KIMINDA, the Appellant herein, it is deponed that the Appellant will suffer if the stay is not granted since he is the sole breadwinner and if he is committed to civil jail he will be unable to raise the decretal amount within the stipulated time. The Appellant also avers that the application has been filed without undue delay and that he has a good appeal which should be ventilated. The Appellant stated that he is a man of meagre means and not able to pay the amount of Kshs. 2,189,135 in full, within 14 days. The Application is opposed by JNN who filed a Replying Affidavit dated 28th June, 2017 and averred that he was a tenant in the Appellants flat in Githurai where the minor Respondent was electrocuted, hence the lower court suit. He also avers that the Appellant is a man of means which fact he had deponed in an Affidavit filed earlier on in the application for stay at the lower court. In an affidavit filed by the Respondent, he has indicated that the appellant is a man of means and owns two rental flats in Githurai and a farm in Kanunga. The Respondent also avers that it’s a lie that the Appellant has paid part payment of Kshs. 200,000 to his Advocates. He contends that the Appellant appears to be determined to deny his daughter her rightful compensation.
page 1 of 3
I have considered the application together with the affidavits on record and submissions by the respective parties. The appellant has sought leave to file the appeal and that the same be deemed as duly filed. He has also sought an order for stay of execution pending the Hearing and determination of the Appeal. The principles applicable in an application for stay of execution are provided in order 42 Rule 6 (2) of the Civil procedure Rules that, “(2) No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless— (a) the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (b) Such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.” In the case of Housing Finance Company of Kenya v Sharok Kher Mohamed Ali Hirji & another [2015] eKLR the Court held that, “We cannot over emphasize that at this stage we are not required to go to the merits of the case as tempting as it may be or consider whether the issues will be successful in favour of the appellant, lest we embarrass the trial judge. We therefore find that the applicant has discharged this requirement on the balance of probabilities. We are further guided by this court’s decision in CARTER & SONS LTD. V. DEPOSIT PROTECTION FUND BOARD & TWO OTHERS – Civil Appeal No. 291 of 1997, at Page 4 as follows: “ . . . the mere fact that there are strong grounds of appeal would not, in itself, justify an order for stay. . .the applicant must establish a sufficient cause; secondly the court must be satisfied that substantial loss would ensue from a refusal to grant a stay; and thirdly the applicant must furnish security, and the application must, of course, be made without unreasonable delay.” Therefore, in determining this application, the Court will endure to find out whether the application has met the above legal principles. It is not in doubt that the application was filed timeously. The ruling sought to be appealed against was delivered on 29th May, 2017 whereas the instant application was filed 9 days thereafter. However, I find that the Appellant has not demonstrated a clear case for substantial loss. Rather than alleging that he is the breadwinner and that his committal to civil jail will affect his provision for the family, he has not demonstrated what substantial loss he will suffer if the stay is not granted and the Respondent proceeds to execute. The Respondent has averred in his Affidavit that the appellant is a man of means and owns two flats in Githurai where the Respondent was a tenant. In the further affidavit dated 10 th October, 2017, the Respondent avers that the Appellant wrote to his lawyer on 25th September, 2017 on a “without prejudice basis” that he was willing to pay Kshs One Million and that the fact that he was willing to pay the one million is an indication that he is able to pay the decretal sum. The Appellant has also not offered any security for due performance of the decree. For an order of stay of execution to be granted, the court has to be satisfied that the applicant has met the provisions of Order 42 rule 6. In the case of Elena D. Korir vs. Kenyatta University (2012) eKLR Justice Nzioki Wamakau had this to say:“the application must meet a criteria set out in precedents and the criteria is best captured in the case of Halal & another vs. Thornton & Turpin Ltd where the Court of Appeal (Gicheru JA, Chesoni & Cockar Ag JA) held that “The High Court’s discretion to order stay of execution of its order or decree is fettered by three conditions, namely:- Sufficient cause, Substantial loss would ensue from a refusal to grant stay, The applicant must furnish security, the application must be made without unreasonable delay.” This application does not meet the threshold for grant of stay of execution orders. The Applicant has not established a clear case to warrant the orders being sought and the same is hereby dismissed. However,
page 2 of 3
the appellant is granted leave to appeal as prayed in prayer 2 of the application. Costs of the application are awarded to the Respondent. It is so ordered. Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 6th Day of December, 2017. ……………………………. L. NJUGUNA JUDGE In the Presence of …………………………. For the Appellant …………………………. For the Respondent
page 3 of 3