Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application E187 of 2024

Board of Governors Matili Technical Training Institute & 2 others v Ramogi Construction Company Limited

Court of Appeal
28 November 2025
1,080 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal dismissed a bid to halt payment of a Kshs.16.4 million judgment because the applicants never filed a notice of appeal against that judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, a public technical training institute, the Permanent Secretary for Higher Education and the Attorney General, moved the Court of Appeal at Kisumu for stay of execution and temporary restraint of the respondent from enforcing a High Court judgment of 15th January 2024 awarding the respondent Kshs.16,438,442, pending an intended appeal against a High Court ruling of 29th November 2024 (D. Kemei, J) that had dismissed their earlier stay application. The application invoked Articles 159 and 164(3) of the Constitution, the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, the Basic Education Act and the Government Proceedings Act. The respondent opposed, contending that no appeal had been filed against the judgment sought to be stayed and that execution had already been completed, with the attached properties sold to settle the decretal sum. At the hearing there was no appearance for the applicants, though written submissions were filed, in which they curiously invoked Rule 5(2) principles despite citing no rule of the Court in their motion. The Court held that Rule 5(2)(b) permits stay of execution in civil proceedings only where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 77. The notice of appeal on record related only to the ruling declining a stay, not to the judgment of 15th January 2024 under execution. In the absence of a duly filed notice of appeal against that judgment, the Court lacked jurisdiction and declined to entertain the application, dismissing it with costs to the respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for stay of execution where no notice of appeal has been lodged against the judgment sought to be stayed

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to grant stay of execution absent a notice of appeal

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a stay application under Rule 5(2)(b) where no notice of appeal has been lodged against the judgment or decision sought to be stayed.

Reasoning

Rule 5(2)(b) permits stay of execution in civil proceedings only where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 77. The applicants sought to stay execution of the judgment of 15th January 2024, against which no notice of appeal was filed; their notice of appeal related only to the later ruling declining a stay. Without the jurisdictional predicate of a lodged notice of appeal, the Court could not entertain the application and had to down its tools.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b) to order a stay of execution in civil proceedings unless a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 77.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs to the respondent

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

majority
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Bungoma
HCCA No. 1 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159 and 164(3) of the Constitution; Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules considered

Relief refused

#

Stay of execution and temporary restraint of the respondent from enforcing the decree and judgment of 15th January 2024

No notice of appeal was lodged against the judgment sought to be stayed, so the Court lacked jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b)

p. 3

Costs

The application is dismissed with costs to the 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.

It is therefore clear from the foregoing that, in the absence of a duly filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this application. It is time for us to down our tools as we hereby do.
p. 3Jurisdiction - stay of execution requires a lodged notice of appeal
In any Civil Proceedings where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 77, order stay of execution, an injunction or stay of any further proceedings on such terms as the Court may think just
p. 3Rule 5(2)(b) Court of Appeal Rules - jurisdictional predicate
The application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal with costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Coram lists only one judge but the judgment is signed by three Judges of Appeal

minor

Applicants cited no rule of this Court in the motion yet sought stay orders; the court noted the defect but did not rule on curability

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Board of Governors Matili Technical Training Institute & 2 others v Ramogi Construction Company Limited", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application E187 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2211/eng@2025-11-28

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