RULING OF THE COURT
We think the applicant has an arguable appeal and Mr Kurauka for the respondent is obviously right to concede this. The claim was for a declaratory judgment against the insurance company and it is arguable that even if the company was properly served with summons, the respondent was not entitled to obtain summary money judgment against it. That is one arguable point and that one point is sufficient.
We also think that the respondent is not very forthcoming in stating his ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal against him was to succeed. It is clear that since the decision of this Court in KENINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PATRICK MUTURI , Civil Application NO NAI 107 of 1993 (unreported) the Court is perfectly entitled to take into account the ability of a respondent to refund the decretal sum if he were to be ordered to do so. We are, accordingly satisfied that the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution. We accordingly order as follows:
1.We grant…