Attorney General & another v Kenya National Assurance Co (2001) Ltd & 36 others [2018] KECA 736 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal paused the fine and property attachment of a former Mombasa County Commissioner found in contempt, because his appeal raises serious questions.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted
Key legal issues
#Twin principles for stay under Rule 5(2)(b)
The applicants satisfied both principles: the appeal raised arguable points and would be rendered nugatory if the fine were paid
The court restated that a Rule 5(2)(b) applicant must demonstrate an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is denied, citing Reliance Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments and Peter Paul Mburu Ndururi. Both limbs must be met. The court found arguable points including whether the 2nd applicant could be cited for contempt for orders issued and served before he assumed office, and found the nugatory limb satisfied because payment of the fine would render the appeal academic.
Whether the 2nd applicant could be cited for contempt of orders issued before he assumed office
This is an arguable point meriting consideration in the intended appeal; no final determination was made
The 2nd applicant took office as County Commissioner in 2016, while the enforcement orders of 4th March 2014 were issued and served before then. The court, cautioning against making final determinations on issues reserved for the intended appeal, held that whether he could properly be cited for contempt and whether the Judge considered his response were arguable points deserving consideration.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both the arguability and nugatory principles; satisfying only one is insufficient
- A single arguable ground suffices to establish arguability under Rule 5(2)(b)
Court orders
#- 1.An order of stay of execution against the ruling of Omollo, J. dated 17th October, 2017 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- ELC No. 123 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
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.
In determining an application under Rule 5(2)(b) we have to satisfy ourselves that the applicants have demonstrated that they have an arguable appeal or an appeal that is not frivolous, and secondly, that if the orders sought are not granted, the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory, if it eventually succeeds.
Nor are they required to show that the appeal would definitely succeed or that the appeal has very high chances of succeeding. It is sufficient, if they can show that it has serious questions of law or a reasonable argument, deserving consideration by this Court.
Consequently, we issue an order of stay of execution against the ruling of Omollo, J. dated 17th October, 2017 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Attorney General & another v Kenya National Assurance Co (2001) Ltd & 36 others [2018] KECA 736 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Application No. 56 of 2017 (UR 45/17). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/736/eng@2018-02-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.