Central Bank of Kenya & another v Ratilal Automobiles Limited & 10 others (Civil Appeal 279 of 2006) [2018] KECA 31 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal let a bank customers' judicial review case proceed, but cancelled sweeping orders that had blocked the Central Bank from doing its job.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the learned judge was right in granting leave to the 1st to 4th respondents to apply for judicial review orders
- 2.Whether the learned judge erred in directing that the leave so granted do operate as a stay of the appellants' activities complained of by the ex parte applicants
Key legal issues
#Threshold for grant of leave to apply for judicial review
The High Court properly granted leave because the material showed an arguable case; at the leave stage the court is not required to go into the matter in depth or assess the bona fides or merits of the averments.
Judicial review leave is a filter for frivolous applications, not a merits hearing. The ex parte applicants supported their application with lengthy affidavits, annextures and a statutory statement challenging the legality of the appointment of the statutory manager. On that material the judge was entitled to find an arguable case, and an appellate court will not disturb that discretionary exercise absent misdirection.
Whether leave may operate as a stay in terms so wide as to restrain statutory functions
The stay directed by the High Court was so wide, imprecise and far-reaching that it effectively reinstated the bank's directors in control and restrained the Central Bank and KRA from their statutory mandates; it exceeded the jurisdiction exercisable at the leave stage and had to be vacated.
The stay covered matters at the behest of CHB, an interested party that had made no application. It stayed transfer of funds, the bank's suspension from the Clearing House, investigations, audits and licence decisions. Its effect was equivalent to an ex parte mandatory injunction, which the court had no jurisdiction to grant at that stage, and the judge failed to consider the full import of the order.
Legal principles established
#- The grant of leave to apply for judicial review is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously; at the leave stage the applicant need only show an arguable case and the court must not go into the matter in depth.
- A direction that leave operate as a stay cannot be used as a device to grant what amounts to an ex parte mandatory injunction; such a stay must be capable of implementation and must not alter the status quo.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal partially succeeds to the extent that the order of stay (leave operating as a stay in terms of prayers 3(a) and 3(b) of the ex parte application) is vacated
- 2.The second limb of the High Court ruling directing that the grant of leave operate as a stay is set aside
- 3.Each party bears its own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Judicial Review application (ex parte) filed 15th September 2006
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over a High Court interlocutory ruling in judicial review proceedings (Order LIII of the Civil Procedure Rules framework then applicable)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the grant of leave to apply for judicial review
The low threshold for leave was met; the judge did not exercise her discretion injudiciously
Costs
Each party bears its own costs of the appeal.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The leave of court is a prerequisite to making a substantive application for judicial review. The purpose of the leave is to filter out frivolous applications.
Once there is an arguable case leave is to be granted and the court, at that stage is not called upon to go into the matter in depth.
In view of the foregoing, this appeal partially succeeds to the extent that the order of stay is hereby vacated. We order that each party bears its own costs of the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Republic v Chief Magistrates Court Nakuru & another; Elemech Engineering Company Limited & another (Interested Parties); Njarama (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E013 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1984 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1984 (KLR)13 Jun 2025
- Republic v Chief Magistrates Court Nakuru & another; Elemech Engineering Company Limited & another (Interested Parties); Muthendu (Exparte Applicant) (Judicial Review E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1703 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1703 (KLR)13 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Central Bank of Kenya & another v Ratilal Automobiles Limited & 10 others (Civil Appeal 279 of 2006) [2018] KECA 31 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Interlocutory Civil Appeal from High Court at Eldoret, Judicial Review Application filed 15th September 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/31/eng@2018-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.