JOHNSON NYAKUNDI KINGOINA vs HEZRON NYANGAU [1998] KECA 74 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause a tenant's eviction because the appeal had no real chance of success and no irreversible harm would result.
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 applicant's intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, if the intended appeal succeeds, it would be rendered nugatory if stay of execution is not granted
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal was not arguable. The High Court judge had rejected the applicant's claim of an unwritten amicable arrangement to quit, and the Court of Appeal, on its own assessment of the recorded word, saw nothing arguable in that contention.
The notice terminating the tenancy was given on the ground of a change of ownership, not rent arrears, and the respondent's reference to the tribunal was still pending. There was also an existing High Court case with an order that rent be paid into court. Against that background, the claim of a consensual arrangement to quit was rejected by the trial judge, and the appellate court found no arguable point on its own review of the record.
Nugatory value of the intended appeal
Even if the appeal succeeded, it would not be rendered nugatory without a stay, because the premises would still be there and the applicant could take them over; the claimed loss of goods worth Shs.1.5 million was self-inflicted.
The court reasoned that success on appeal would allow the applicant to retake the premises, so no irreversible harm would flow from refusing the stay. The applicant's placement of goods worth Shs.1.5 million in the premises despite the pending tribunal reference and the order for rent to be paid into court meant any resulting loss would be of his own making, not a ground for a stay.
Legal principles established
#- On an application for stay of execution pending an intended appeal, the court must consider whether the appeal is arguable and, if so, whether it would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; both limbs must be satisfied.
- A party who enters premises in disregard of pending tribunal proceedings and a High Court order that rent be paid into court cannot invoke the resulting loss as a ground for stay; such loss is self-inflicted.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay of execution pending the intended appeal is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisii
- H.C.C.C. No. 103 of 1998
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent appellate jurisdiction to grant stay of execution pending an intended appeal (Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, as described in the ruling's two-limb test)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution pending the hearing of the intended appeal
The applicant failed both limbs: the intended appeal was not shown to be arguable, and the appeal would not be rendered nugatory without a stay; any loss of goods in the premises would be of the applicant's own making
Costs
Application dismissed with no order as to costs
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.
At this stage, what the court has to consider is whether the applicant's intended appeal is arguable, and if so, whether that appeal, in the event of its being successful, would be rendered nugatory if we do not grant the stay sought.
we do not think the applicant has shown before us an arguable appeal
Our answer to that is that that would be unfortunate but the applicant would have been the author of his own misfortune.
We order that this application be and is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JOHNSON NYAKUNDI KINGOINA vs HEZRON NYANGAU [1998] KECA 74 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Civil Application No. Nai. 110 of 1998 (45/98 UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/74/eng@1998-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.