Case ID:178422

Hamisi Saidi Ranzuga v Mlongo Kuto [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Civil Appeal E061 of 2021

Parties:

Hamisi Saidi Ranzuga v Mlongo Kuto

Date Delivered:

29 Jun 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

High Court at Mombasa

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Dorah O. Chepkwony

Citation:

Hamisi Saidi Ranzuga v Mlongo Kuto [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Mr. Oyas counsel for Appellant/Applicant

Court Division:

Civil

County:

Mombasa

Advocates:

Mr. Oyas counsel for Appellant/Applicant

Case Outcome:

Application dismissed

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT MOMBASA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. E061 OF 2021

HAMISI SAIDI RANZUGA.....APPELLANT/APPLICANT

VERSUS

MLONGO KUTO ..........................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The application for consideration before this court is the Appellant’s

Notice of Motion

dated

27

th

April, 2021

. The same is brought under

Sections 1A, 1B and 3A and 65,

all of the

Civil Procedure Act

and O

rder 42 and 51,

both of the

Civil Procedure Rules

and enabling provisions of the law. By the Application, the Appellant/Applicant seeks the following orders: -

1. Spent;

2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to order a stay of execution of the orders made on the 7

th

of April 2021 pending the hearing and final determination of the Applicant’s Appeal;

3. Spent;

4. Spent;

5. That the costs of this application be provided for.

2. The

Motion

is supported by the grounds presented on its body and the Affidavit of

Hamisi Saidi Ranzuga

, the Appellant/Applicant. He averred that on the

25

th

September, 2019,

Judgment was entered in

Kwale CMCC No.453 of 2018

wherein he was ordered to pay the Respondent the decretal sum of

Kshs.294,070/=

plus costs of the suit.

3.

Mr. Hamisi

depones that he filed an application to set aside the Judgment delivered on

25

th

September, 2019

. It was stated that he was not served to appear before the trial court, but only became aware of the suit when he was served with the Proclamation and Warrant of Attachments.

4. He averred that his application to set aside the judgment, was heard and was dismissed by the trial court vide a Ruling delivered on

7

th

April, 2021

to that effect.

5. The Appellant/Applicant stated that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Ruling delivered

7

th

April, 2021,

he instructed his Advocates to Appeal the said decision. A Notice of Appeal was filed to that effect on the

28

th

April, 2021

.

6.

Mr. Hamisi

averred that he is apprehensive that if the decretal amount is paid to the Respondent, the Respondent would be in no position to refund the same if the intended Appeal is successful.

7. He also averred that unless stay pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal is granted, the Respondent will move to enforce the Judgment delivered on 25

th

September, 2019, and render the appeal nugatory and he will suffer irreparable loss and damage that cannot be compensated by costs.

8. The Application was opposed vide a

Replying Affidavit

sworn on

4

th

May, 2021

by

Kariuki Gathuthi,

Counsel for the Respondent

.

He averred that the Appellant/Applicant had filed a similar application before the Senior Principal Magistrate Court at Kwale and it was dismissed for being a non-starter.

9. He stated that the application herein is an attempt to mislead the court as the Appellant/Applicant confirmed that he was served with pleadings and forwarded the same to his insurance of choice, Invesco Insurance Company Limited.

10. It was deponed that the Appellant herein in his indolence never entered appearance nor defended his right. That he filed the application to set aside the Judgment one (1) year later and only after he was served with Proclamation and Warrant of Attachment.

11. Mr. Kariuki deponed that the Appellant/Applicant has previously issued cheques for the settlement of the judgment, although faulty, the cheque shows that they had no intention of set aside the said Judgment.

12. According to the Respondent, litigation must come to an end and the Respondent allowed to enjoy the fruits of his Judgment. Lastly, he depones that the application herein is made in bad faith, is an abuse of the court process and should be dismissed with costs to the Respondent.

13. Despite the various directions from this court that parties file written submissions in canvassing the application, they did not do so. Instead, the Respondent indicated to Court that he would rely on his Reply as filed.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

14. Having considered all the pleadings by the parties, I find the issue that arises for determination is whether this court can issue stay of execution of the

Ruling

and

Orders

granted on

7

th

April, 2021

pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal.

15.

Order 42

Rule 6

of the

Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

specifies the circumstances under which the court may order Stay of Execution of a Decree or Order pending an Appeal. It provides that an Applicant must demonstrate the following: -

a. Substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order

was made;

b. The application was made without unreasonable delay; and

c. Such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately binding on him has been given by the applicant.

16. From the above provision, it is clear that the power to grant an application for stay of execution pending appeal is a discretionary one on sufficient cause being shown, being

where the applicant may suffer substantial loss

;

the application is made without unreasonable delay

and

on provision of such security as the Court may impose

.

17. Further, it is trite law and as evidenced by precedents that an application for stay of execution pending appeal requires that there be a positive requirement/or order that is capable of being stayed.

18. In the case of

Western College of Arts and Applied Sciences v Oranga & Others (1976-80) 1 KLR

,

the Court of Appeal for East Africa in respect of stay of execution, stated as follows: -

“…But what is there to be executed under the judgment, the subject of the intended appeal? The High Court has merely dismissed the suit with costs. Any execution can only be in respect of costs. In

Wilson v Church

the High Court had ordered the trustees of a church to make a payment out of that fund. In the instant case the High Court has not ordered any parties to do anything, or to refrain from doing anything, or to pay any sum. There is nothing arising out of the High Court Judgment for this Court, in and application for stay, it is so ordered…”

19. The Application as filed by the Appellant/Applicant requires this court to stay the Ruling delivered on

7

th

April, 2021

. I have looked at the said Ruling and find there is nothing that the Magistrate’s Court has ordered to be done or to refrain from being done. In this case, the Magistrate’s court only dismissed an application dated

25

th

September, 2020

and filed on

8

th

October, 2020

that required it to set aside the Judgment as was entered in favour of the Respondent.

20. In the case of

Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited –vs- Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) [2015]Eklr,

the Court of Appeal (Kantai J.A) held as follows: -

“…An order for stay of execution [pending appeal] is ordinarily an interim order which seeks to delay the performance of positive obligations that are set out in a decree as a result of a Judgment. The delay of performance

presupposes the existence of a situation to stay – called a “positive order” – either an order that has not been complied with or has partly been complied with

. See, for this general proposition, the holding of the Court of Appeal of Uganda in

Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v National Insurance Corporation

(Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984)

where it was stated:

‘….. an order for stay of execution must be intended to serve a purpose …..’” (

emphasis supplied

) ….”

21. Further, in the case of

Kanwal Sarjit Singh Dhiman –vs- Keshavji Jivraj Shah [2008]

eKLR

, whilst considering whether an order of stay of execution can be granted in respect of a negative order, the Court of Appeal held as follows: -

“…The 2

nd

prayer in the application is for stay (of execution) of the order of the superior court made on 18th December, 2006. The order of 18th December, 2006 merely dismissed the application for setting aside the judgment with costs. By the order, the superior

court did not order any of the parties to do anything or refrain from doing anything or to pay any sum

. It was thus, a negative order which is incapable of execution save in respect of costs only…”

22. In light of the above authorities, there is nothing to stay in the present matter and the application dated

17

th

April, 2021

is hereby dismissed.

23. Each party to bear their own costs.

It is so ordered.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MOMBASA THIS 29

TH

DAY OF JUNE, 2021

D. O. CHEPKWONY

JUDGE

In the presence of

:

Mr. Oyas counsel for Appellant/Applicant

No appearance for and by Respondent

Court Assistant - Bancy