Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application (rule 5(2)(b)) arising from Civil Appeal No. 695 of 2019

Nuru Chemists Ltd & another v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Civil Appeal (Application) E144 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1466 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
25 August 2025
AMA. O. Muchelule
1,441 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal declined to fast-track Nuru Chemists' application, confirming urgency must be proven with sworn evidence, not just claimed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge certification ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Muchelule, JA on 25th August 2025. The applicants, Nuru Chemists Limited and James Isaboke, moved the Court under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking to stay the orders of the superior court pending the hearing and determination of their intended appeal against the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 695 of 2019. The dispute concerns a loan of Kshs. 2,000,000 taken from Standard Chartered Bank in 1993 with a guarantee of Kshs. 3,500,000 by the second applicant; the respondent bank claimed to have taken over the debts of Standard Chartered. The trial court found for the applicants on the basis of discrepancies in the takeover of the account, but the superior court on first appeal reversed, finding the first applicant indebted in the sum of Kshs. 4,560,281.90 with 22% interest and entering judgment of Kshs. 3,500,000 against the second applicant under the guarantee. The applicants now intend to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Before the single judge, counsel for the applicants urged that the matter be certified urgent because the respondent seeks to execute the impugned judgment, while the respondent opposed, contending no exceptional circumstances were shown. Applying Equip Agencies Ltd v Abdullahi Kassam Esmail, the judge held that urgency cannot be certified on an applicant's say-so without sworn evidence of a real, immediate and present danger to rights. Finding no actual or imminent peril demonstrated, the judge declined to certify the application as urgent and directed that it be listed for hearing in the usual manner. No costs order was made. The decision does not disturb the decision below; it is confined to case-management certification.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application ought to be certified as urgent and heard on a priority basis

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants demonstrated exceptional circumstances meriting certification of the application as urgent

Holding

The court declined certification, holding that urgency must be evidenced by a real and immediate threat, not merely asserted, and that the merits cannot be delved into at the certification stage.

Reasoning

Relying on Equip Agencies Ltd v Abdullahi Kassam Esmail, the single judge held that a certificate of urgency must be supported by sworn affidavit evidence proving the imminence of the threat apprehended. The applicants' counsel urged urgency only on the ground that the respondent seeks to execute the impugned judgment, and the judge found no actual or imminent peril shown. The mandate at certification is limited to forming an impression on urgency without engaging the merits, and the discretion must be exercised judiciously.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application will not be certified urgent on the mere say-so of the applicant or his advocates; the imminence of the threat must be proved by sworn evidence showing real, clear and present peril of harm.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The request to certify the application as urgent is declined
  2. 2.The application shall be listed for hearing in the usual manner

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AM
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Superior court (High Court, on first appeal)
Civil Appeal No. 695 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) and rule 47/49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules (certification of urgency)

Relief refused

#

Certification of the application as urgent

The applicants failed to demonstrate actual or imminent peril or harm warranting the matter to jump the queue

p. 3

Costs

No costs order made in the ruling as delivered

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 application will not be certified urgent on an applicant’s or his advocates’ say – so, without more.
p. 3certification of urgency - evidentiary threshold
Such risk must be real and immediate. It must portend a present danger to rights and interests.
p. 3nature of the peril required for urgency
I still decline the request to certify the application as urgent. The application shall be listed for hearing in the usual manner.
p. 3final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The identity of the respondent bank is not clearly stated; the judgment refers to 'the Bank' having taken over debts of Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Limited, and the applicants' loan was repaid through Barclays Bank, but the respondent is never named in full.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nuru Chemists Ltd & another v National Bank of Kenya Ltd (Civil Appeal (Application) E144 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1466 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (rule 5(2)(b)) arising from Civil Appeal No. 695 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1466/eng@2025-08-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.