Woodventure (K) Limited v Technical Study Tours Limited, Simon Kanani Sagana & Ahmed Said Salam [2018] KEHC 9130 (KLR) | Stay Of Execution | Esheria

Woodventure (K) Limited v Technical Study Tours Limited, Simon Kanani Sagana & Ahmed Said Salam [2018] KEHC 9130 (KLR)

Full Case Text

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

CIVIL DIVISION

HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL CASE NO. 254 OF 2017

WOODVENTURE (K) LIMITED...........................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

TECHNICAL STUDY TOURS LIMITED.................1ST RESPONDENT

SIMON KANANI SAGANA.......................................2ND RESPONDENT

AHMED SAID SALAM..............................................3RD RESPONDENT

RULING

1.  The application dated 6th July, 2017 seeks orders that this Honourable Court be pleased to order that the decretal sum of Kshs.537,852/= be returned by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the same be deposited into a fixed deposit account in the joint names of the Appellant’s and the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ advocates pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal. Secondly that the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of stay of execution in respect of the balance of the decretal sum, interests and costs pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal. The third prayer is that the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order for the balance of the decretal sum, interests and costs to be deposited in an interest earning account in the joint account of the Appellant and the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s Advocates.

2.  It is stated in the affidavit in support that judgment of Ksh.576,920/= was entered in the Lower Court against the Applicants on 2nd October, 2015.  That 75% being Kshs.532,852/= of the decretal sum was deposited in court pursuant to the orders issued by the Lower Court but that the same has been released to the 1st  and 2nd Respondents . The Applicant is apprehensive that the appeal may be rendered nugatory as the 1st and 2nd Respondent may not be in a position to refund the decretal sum.

3.  The application is not opposed.  No papers were filed in opposition to the same.

4.  During the hearing of the application the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ counsel confirmed that the application is not opposed. Consequently, I allow the application as prayed with costs in cause.

Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this16th day of May, 2018

B. THURANIRA JADEN

JUDGE