Gospel Outreach Church Gakawa Hope Christian Worship Center & another v Kiminda & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E189 of 2024) [2025] KECA 2085 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed church occupants' bid to block a property sale because they filed no draft appeal showing arguable grounds.
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 appeal for purposes of rule 5(2)(b)
- 2.Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay or injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants satisfied the twin principles for relief under rule 5(2)(b)
They did not; the arguability limb failed because no draft memorandum of appeal was supplied, and the nugatory limb was not demonstrated because damages could compensate
The court restated the twin principles from David Morton Silversein v. Atsango Chesoni. The applicants attached no draft memorandum of appeal, so the court could not assess the likely grounds of appeal. From the affidavits and judgment it appeared the applicants bought the respondents' property from a third party without the registered owner's authority. Having failed the arguability limb, the second limb fell away; in any event damages would suffice. The application was dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed under rule 5(2)(b), an applicant must satisfy the twin principles of an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay
- Failure to satisfy the first limb (arguability) renders it unnecessary to consider the second limb (nugatory)
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed
- 2.Costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court (Environment and Land Court)
- ELC Case No. 3 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 5, 43 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (including rule 5(2)(b))
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining respondents from selling, subdividing, entering, trespassing upon, demolishing, alienating or wasting the building on the suit property pending appeal
Applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal; no draft memorandum of appeal was attached
Maintenance of status quo ante
Failed with the application; first limb of the twin principles not satisfied
Stay of execution and/or further proceedings in ELC Case No. 3 of 2015 pending appeal
Arguability not demonstrated and nugatory aspect not shown, as the claim can be compensated by damages
Costs
The application fails with costs to the respondents.
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.
To succeed in an application under rule 5 (2)(b) of the Court’s Rules, an applicant has to satisfy the twin principles that are enumerated in many decisions of this Court
The application thus fails with costs to the respondents.
in the event the appeal succeeds, the claim over the suit property can always be compensated by way of damages
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the appeal number or the parties' full names in the formal title; the parties are identified only descriptively in the body.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gospel Outreach Church Gakawa Hope Christian Worship Center & another v Kiminda & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E189 of 2024) [2025] KECA 2085 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (application by notice of motion dated 29th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2085/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.