Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Application No. Nai. 304 of 2014 (UR 227/2014)· [2015] KECA 915 (KLR)

Prof. Njuguna S. Ndung’u v The Ethics & Anti Corruption Commission & 3 others

Court of Appeal
6 March 2015
JMJ.W. MweraPKP.O. KiageSKS. Gatembu Kairu
6,107 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~24 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed it can block arrest and prosecution pending appeal, protecting former CBK Governor Prof. Ndung'u from corruption charges while his appeal is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, a former Governor of the Central Bank of Kenya, sought conservatory orders restraining the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Inspector General of Police from arresting, arraigning or prosecuting him pending the hearing of his appeal (Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2014) against the dismissal by Odunga, J. of High Court Petition No. 73 of 2014, which had challenged his intended prosecution over the alleged loss of Kshs. 400 million in a Central Bank tender awarded to Horsebridge Network Systems pursuant to orders of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board. The DPP filed a preliminary objection contending that conservatory orders were unknown to Rule 5(2)(b) and that a negative dismissal order is incapable of being stayed. The Court rejected the objection. Holding that the twin limbs for Rule 5(2)(b) relief (arguability and nugatory aspect) are settled, it found the appeal arguable on the question of the extent of criminal liability for ostensible compliance with PPARB orders, viewed through the rights-based dispensation of Articles 10 and 157(11). It held that conservatory orders fall within the Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction read with sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Constitution, adopting M'Inoti JA's usage in Equity Bank and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Moi High School Kabarak and Gatirau Peter Munya. It also held that negative orders may in appropriate cases be subject of status quo preserving relief. The application was allowed: a conservatory order restraining arrest, arraignment or prosecution was granted pending the appeal, the appeal was directed to be fast-tracked on priority basis, and costs of the application were to abide the outcome of the appeal. The High Court decision itself was not disturbed at this interlocutory stage.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether conservatory orders fall within the Court of Appeal's Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction

Holding

Yes. Rule 5(2)(b) names stay of execution, injunction and stay of proceedings, but conservatory orders may issue under the same Rule read with sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Constitution; the jurisdiction preserves the substratum of the appeal and the status quo.

Reasoning

The Court adopted M'Inoti JA's deliberate and repeated usage of 'conservatory orders' in Equity Bank v West Link Mbo, and aligned itself with the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Moi High School Kabarak and Gatirau Peter Munya. It held the incorporation of conservatory orders into Rule 5(2)(b) is a logical consequence of fidelity to the Constitution and the overriding objective, and that any nuanced expansion of the traditional twin limbs is to be embraced since the principles are judge-made. The object must always be the doing of substantial justice.

p. 8
02

Whether a dismissal order (a negative order) is incapable of being stayed

Holding

The objection fails. Though a negative order is not capable of execution in the conventional sense, the Court may in appropriate cases invoke its inherent jurisdiction to maintain the status quo pending appeal, as in Dhiman v Shah and the Erinford principle.

Reasoning

The Court observed that in Dhiman v Shah the Court, absent express provisions in the Rules, resorted to inherent jurisdiction to maintain the status quo pending appeal, thereby addressing the negative-order argument. It analogised to a judge who refuses an injunction but may nonetheless grant one pending appeal against his own refusal (Erinford Properties). The power to order a stay is inherent in the Court and may be deployed ex-debito justitiae.

p. 7
03

Whether the applicant's appeal was arguable and would be rendered nugatory

Holding

Yes on both limbs. The appeal raises the important question of the extent of criminal liability for apparent or ostensible compliance with lawful orders of the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board; and an arrest and prosecution before the appeal is determined would render it nugatory given the dire penalties under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003.

Reasoning

A single arguable point suffices. The Court balanced the public interest in prosecuting crime against the applicant's rights-based challenge, noting Articles 10 and 157(11) and that the respondents conceded a rights-violating prosecution invites intervention. No harm, prejudice or inconvenience would befall the respondents by awaiting the appeal's hearing and determination.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b), as read with sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and the Constitution, to grant conservatory orders protecting an applicant from arrest and prosecution pending appeal, notwithstanding that Rule 5(2)(b) enumerates only stay of execution, injunction and stay of proceedings.
  • A negative order of dismissal, though not itself capable of execution, may in appropriate cases be the subject of interlocutory relief preserving the status quo pending appeal.
  • The twin limbs for Rule 5(2)(b) relief are an arguable appeal and the nugatory aspect, with the discretion wide and unfettered.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Conservatory order restraining the respondents from arresting, arraigning or prosecuting the applicant pending the hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2014
  2. 2.The appeal (Civil Appeal No. 333 of 2014) be fast-tracked for hearing and determination on priority basis, preferably in the next Court term
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C. Petition No. 73 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 164(3) of the Constitution as read with Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9) and Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules; Articles 20(3) and 23(3) of the Constitution invoked by the applicant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (10)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Prof. Njuguna S. Ndung’u v The Ethics & Anti Corruption Commission & 3 others", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. Nai. 304 of 2014 (UR 227/2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/915/eng@2015-03-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.