Jackton Ranguma v Ernst & Young [2017] KEHC 8562 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

CIVIL DIVISION

HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 962 OF 2006

JACKTON RANGUMA ..........APPLICANT

VERSUS

ERNST & YOUNG..............RESPONDENT

RULING

1. The  application dated 16th May, 2016 seeks orders that this Honourable court do issue a stay of execution on the ruling given by the Deputy Registrar on the 5th of May 2016 pending determination of the objection.

2. The application is based on the grounds stated in the application and is supported by the affidavit sworn by the Applicant Jackson Ranguma.  It is stated that in a ruling on taxation dated 5th May, 2016, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay Ksh.343,450/= to the Respondent.  The Applicant is aggrieved by the said ruling and wishes to object to the same.  It is stated that if compelled to pay the taxed amount the Applicant will be subjected to hardship and financial embarrassment.  That the Applicant stands to suffer financial loss if stay of execution is not granted.

3. The application is opposed.  It is stated in the replying affidavit that there is no evidence to support the claim that the Applicant will suffer substantial loss, hardship or financial embarrassment.  That no objection has been filed and therefore the Plaintiff is out of time as provided by paragraph 11(1) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

4. During the hearing of the application the counsels for the respective parties opted to file written submissions.  I have considered the said submissions.

5. Order 42 rule 6  (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows:-

“No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub-rule (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.”

6. The Applicant has not given any details on his financial resources to show that he would be exposed to hardship or financial embarrassment.  No substantial loss that would be suffered by the Applicant has been demonstrated.  As stated by the Court Appeal to in the case of Kenya Shell Limited vs. Kibiru (1986) KLR:

“Substantial loss in its various forms, is the cornerstone of the jurisdictions for granting a stay.  That is what has to be prevented.  Therefore without this evidence it is difficult to see why the respondents should be kept out of their money.”

7. There are no allegations made by the Applicant that the Respondent would not be in a position to refund the amount in question should the objection succeed.  Indeed the objection is yet to be filed.  The Applicant is out of time as paragraph 11 of the Advocates (Remuneration) Order provides for the filing of the objection within 14 days.

8. With the foregoing, I find no merits in this application and dismiss the same with costs.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 15th day of March, 2017

B.THURANIRA JADEN

JUDGE