Samuel Kimuge & 40 others as per the Annexed List v Municipal Council of Nakuru [2001] KECA 218 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal blocked Nakuru's Municipal Council from dealing with the town's only public slaughterhouse land until the butchers' appeal is decided.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, in the exercise of the Court's discretion under rule 5(2)(b), an order of injunction pending the hearing and determination of the appeal should issue
Key legal issues
#Whether to grant an injunction pending appeal under rule 5(2)(b)
The Court found the grounds of appeal arguable and, noting counsel's concession that the respondent had no present intention to interfere with the slaughter house and surrounding land, exercised its discretion to restrain the respondent from dealing with the suit premises pending disposal of the appeal.
The Court observed that although the respondent, as registered proprietor, appeared prima facie able to deal with the suit property, substantial issues raised in the grounds of appeal were arguable. The applicants, butchers and livestock suppliers, relied on the property being public utility land held in trust, on a subsisting lease to the 41st plaintiff, and on the irreparable harm that closure of the only public slaughter-house would cause. Counsel for the respondent conceded no present intention to interfere, which reinforced the propriety of granting the restraint order pending the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the Court that the intended appeal is arguable and that the matter warrants the exercise of the Court's discretion; where both are shown, an injunction pending appeal may issue.
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent, Municipal Council of Nakuru, is restrained from dealing with the suit premises measuring about 4 acres and the slaughter house until the appeal already filed is disposed of
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- H.C.C.C. No. 152 of 2000
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
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.
The respondent is hereby restrained from dealing with the suit premises measuring about 4 acres and the slaughter house till the appeal already filed is disposed off.
we are satisfied that this is a proper case in which we should exercise our discretion in favour of the applicant and grant the order sought
The costs of this application shall be in the intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The signature block is garbled in the copy: the third judge's name appears detached after the Deputy Registrar's certification line ('M. ... JUDGE OF APPEAL ... Ole KEIWUA'), though the coram confirms the bench as Tunoi, Owuor and Keiwua, JJ.A.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Kimuge & 40 others as per the Annexed List v Municipal Council of Nakuru [2001] KECA 218 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Application No. Nai. 70 of 2001 (UR. 43/2001). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/218/eng@2001-09-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.