Meeli & another v Kimani & 4 others (Civil Application E298 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1041 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to stop a property transfer or court proceedings because the applicants never filed a notice of appeal against the original judgment.
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 Court has jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) to grant an injunction restraining dealings with the suit property, and stay of proceedings, pending an intended appeal where no notice of appeal was filed against the judgment of 14th March 2024
- 2.Whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) in the absence of a notice of appeal against the underlying judgment
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because no notice of appeal was filed against the judgment of 14th March 2024; a notice of appeal against the subsequent contempt ruling cannot sustain a rule 5(2)(b) application.
The applicants' counsel conceded that no notice of appeal was ever filed against the judgment of 14th March 2024, which permanently injuncted them and gave rise to the contempt proceedings. Only the ruling of 24th April 2025 was appealed. The Court held that the notice of appeal is what confers jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b); without a challenge to the underlying judgment, an intended appeal against the subsequent orders cannot stand. Citing Equity Bank vs West Link Mbo, Interim Independent Electoral Commission vs Paul Waweru Mwangi, Mureithi vs Law Society of Kenya, and the Lillian S decision, the Court held it must down its tools.
Legal principles established
#- Under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the filing of a notice of appeal is a precondition to the Court's jurisdiction to grant an order for stay of execution, injunction or stay of proceedings pending appeal.
- An intended appeal against subsequent orders cannot stand where the judgment that gave rise to those orders (including contempt proceedings) has not itself been challenged by a notice of appeal; in such a case the Court is bereft of jurisdiction and must down its tools.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 14th May 2025 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- ELC Case No. 108 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for injunction and stay pending appeal); jurisdiction predicated on a filed notice of appeal
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with the suit property pending an intended appeal
The Court lacked jurisdiction because no notice of appeal had been filed against the judgment of 14th March 2024 giving rise to the contempt proceedings
Stay of proceedings of ELC Case No. 108 of 2017 pending the intended appeal
No notice of appeal filed against the judgment; without it the Court has no jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b)
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the 1st and 2nd 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.
We have said, times without number, that it is the notice of appeal which, for purposes of rule 5(2)(b) of the Court Rules, gives this Court jurisdiction to hear and determine an application under the rule.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to take one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending the evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, this application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the date of the impugned trial court ruling: paragraph 1 and 7 state it was delivered on 24th April 2025, but paragraph 11 refers to 'the impugned ruling of 25th April 2025'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Meeli & another v Kimani & 4 others (Civil Application E298 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1041 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1041/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.