Ndwati v Nakachi & another (Civil Application E598 of 2024) [2025] KECA 502 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause contempt proceedings against a company director, ruling he should have appealed the earlier decision holding him personally liable.
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, if the orders sought are not granted, the appeal, if successful, will be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal was not arguable because the decision the applicant wished to challenge (his liability for the 2nd respondent's indebtedness) was made in the ruling of 5th December 2023, which was never challenged; success on the intended appeal would leave that decision intact.
The Court identified the decision holding the applicant liable as the 5th December 2023 show-cause ruling, not the 22nd October 2024 ruling. Since the earlier ruling was unchallenged, success in the intended appeal would be inconsequential. The Court therefore found the first limb of the stay test unsatisfied and declined to consider the second limb.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must satisfy both limbs: that the appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory unless stay is granted; failure on one limb is fatal.
- An applicant need not prove a multiplicity of arguable grounds; one bona fide arguable ground suffices.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th November 2024 seeking stay of execution pending the intended appeal was dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Cause No E614 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; the Court exercised its inherent/appellate jurisdiction to grant or refuse stay of execution pending an intended appeal
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ruling and orders of the Employment and Labour Relations Court made on 22nd October 2024, ordering the applicant to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail
The Court was not satisfied that the intended appeal is arguable, and having failed the first limb there was no need to consider the nugatory limb
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs (to the 1st respondent)
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.
Having perused the impugned judgment and considered the proposed grounds of appeal as highlighted in the applicant's afidavit in support of his application as well as the submissions of learned counsel, we were not satisfied that the intended appeal is arguable.
Since we were not satisfied on the first limb, there was no need for us to consider the second limb.
It was on that basis that we dismissed the application with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the trial court's liability decision as made on '15th December 2023' in one passage and as a ruling 'dated 5th December 2023' elsewhere, an internal date inconsistency
The judgment does not state the names of the parties, the appeal number, or a neutral citation; the record identifies only the underlying Cause No E614 of 2021
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndwati v Nakachi & another (Civil Application E598 of 2024) [2025] KECA 502 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/502/eng@2025-03-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.