Kaguara & another v Uiru & 5 others (Civil Application E545 of 2022) [2023] KECA 193 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to halt the sub-division of a family farm because the applicants filed no proper appeal and failed to show their case was arguable.
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 applicants demonstrated an arguable intended appeal under rule 5(2)(b)
- 2.Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay of execution
- 3.Whether the court could entertain a stay directed at the ruling of 30th April 2019 (Meoli, J.) against which no notice of appeal was filed
Key legal issues
#Twin principles for stay under rule 5(2)(b)
Both arguability and nugatory-ness must be demonstrated; the applicants failed the arguability limb, so the nugatory limb fell away
The court reiterated the settled twin test from its prior decisions: an applicant must show the appeal is arguable (not frivolous) and that it would be rendered nugatory absent stay. Having found the grounds of appeal at cross-purposes with the ruling under appeal and mainly addressing the earlier 2019 decision, the court doubted arguability. With the first limb failed, the second limb need not be considered.
Stay sought against a ruling not under appeal
A stay cannot be granted in respect of a decision against which no notice of appeal has been filed; such a prayer is defective and an abuse of process
The applicants sought to stay both the Meoli and Kasango rulings, yet no notice of appeal existed against the 30th April 2019 ruling. The court held that jurisdiction over an appeal is invoked only by filing a notice of appeal, that the applicants were attempting to sneak in issues determined in the earlier ruling, and that this was mischievous and an abuse of process rendering the prayer incurably defective.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the twin principles of arguability and nugatory-ness; proving only one limb does not suffice
- A party can only invoke the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with the rules
- A single arguable issue suffices under rule 5(2)(b); the applicant need not establish a multiplicity of arguable issues or show the point would succeed
- Where the grounds are plainly frivolous the Court will express doubt on arguability even at the stay stage
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2022
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Succession Cause No. 7 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules; Articles 152(2)(d) and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (invoked by applicants)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution restraining the Kiambu Land Surveyors' visit and sub-division of LR No. Kiambaa/Ruaka/113 pending the intended appeal
Applicants failed the first limb (arguability) of the rule 5(2)(b) twin principles; the appeal grounds mainly re-litigate issues decided in the 30th April 2019 ruling which is not subject of the intended appeal
Stay of execution of the rulings of Meoli, J. (30th April 2019) and Kasango, J. (6th July 2022)
No notice of appeal was filed against the Meoli ruling; the prayer is incurably defective and an abuse of the court process
Costs
Application dismissed with no orders as to costs, as this is a family dispute
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.
It must be clear by now that this application is without merit and is for dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the application with no orders as to costs as this is a family dispute.
It is trite law that a party can only invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a notice of appeal in accordance with the rules.
an applicant needs to demonstrate both arguability and the nugatory aspect, and proving only one limb will not sufice.
We are therefore doubtful on the arguability of the appeal. Consequently, the applicant has failed to satisfy the first limb of the applicable principles.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the Kasango, J. ruling dismissing the review application is twice described as delivered on 5th February 2021, though the applicants' motion seeks stay of 'the ruling delivered on 6th July, 2022 by Justice Mary Kasango'; the extract of the ruling quoted is also dated 5th February 2021 while the application it determined was dated 5th February 2021
The prayers in the notice of motion (prayers a and b) appear blank/incomplete in the record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaguara & another v Uiru & 5 others (Civil Application E545 of 2022) [2023] KECA 193 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/193/eng@2023-02-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.