Attorney General & 2 others v Mungania & 3 others (Civil Application E121 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1438 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause orders protecting school land, ruling that preservative orders do not make an appeal pointless.
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 have an arguable appeal under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Whether the intended appeal or its outcome would be rendered nugatory if a stay of execution of the conservatory orders is not granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal is arguable
Yes - the memorandum of appeal appears to have arguable point(s) at the low threshold required, but arguability alone does not secure a stay.
The court reiterated that the arguability threshold is low; one arguable point suffices and the applicant need not show it will succeed. The draft memorandum of appeal raised arguable points concerning the legality of the land allocation and public interest. This first limb of the twin principle was therefore satisfied, but the application still failed because the second limb was not met.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay
No - the applicants did not demonstrate nugatory-ness; the conservatory orders preserve the substratum of the main petition.
The trial court had ordered no further developments on the suit land other than on the land occupied by the school, in order to safeguard the substratum of the petition, having found no proof that the alienation process was at its final stage. The court found nothing showing how such preservative conservatory orders would render the intended appeal useless, overtaken by events, or a mere academic exercise. Failure on this second limb was fatal to the application.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy twin principles: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay.
- One arguable point suffices and the applicant need not show the arguable point would succeed.
- The threshold for an arguable point on a rule 5(2)(b) application is very low.
- Conservatory orders preserving the substratum of a petition will not ordinarily render an intended appeal nugatory.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay of execution pending hearing and determination of the application and intended appeal is dismissed
- 2.The costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 164(3)(a) of the Constitution, sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the High Court conservatory orders pending the hearing and determination of the application and intended appeal
The applicants failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay; the conservatory orders preserve the substratum of the petition
Costs
The costs of the application will abide by the outcome 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.
An applicant must demonstrate that they have an arguable appeal; and That the intended appeal (or appeal if already filed) will be rendered nugatory if the execution of the decree, or order of proceedings is not stayed.
The threshold for an arguable point for appeal is very low, and in any event, it is the bench hearing the appeal that will, in the end, be considering whether the grounds are merited or not.
It has not been demonstrated to us how the conservatory order meant to preserve the substratum of the petition would render this intended appeal nugatory.
The applicants having failed to demonstrate the 2nd limb necessary, this application must fail. The application is accordingly dismissed.
The costs of the application will abide by the outcome of the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment names only a '2nd applicant' and a supporting affidavit by the '2nd applicant's Legal Officer', but the 1st applicant is never identified by name in the text; the parties' full names are not given in the excerpt.
Ground 14 of the draft memorandum of appeal as summarised states the County Government of Meru 'participated in the public exercise' - the excerpt may be an incomplete rendering of the ground; the appeal number and the identity of the parties remain undisclosed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Attorney General & 2 others v Mungania & 3 others (Civil Application E121 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1438 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application by notice of motion dated 21st November 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1438/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.