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 Appli 79 of 2007 (UR52/2007)· [2007] KECA 138 (KLR)

NDUNGU KINYANJUI v KIBICHOI KUGERIA SERVICES & ANOTHER [2007] KECA 138 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
9 November 2007
906 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

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled you can only get a stay of execution if there's an actual order to enforce and you've filed a Notice of Appeal against it.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of a three-judge bench of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Bosire, Githinji and Onyango Otieno, JJA) delivered on 9th November 2007 on an application by Ndungu Kinyanjui for a stay of execution pending an intended appeal against a ruling of Aluoch J of 9th February 2007, which had dismissed his application for review of an earlier order of 23rd September 2004 dismissing his suit in H.C.C.C. No. 849 of 2004 as res judicata, statutorily barred, and an abuse of process. The application was brought under rules 5(2)(b), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules. Counsel for the respondents relied on the decision in David Thiong'o v Market Fancy Emporium, which the Court followed, holding that an order that requires no party to do anything, refrain from anything, or pay anything is incapable of execution and cannot be stayed. The Court found that the ruling of 9th February 2007 made no such order and no stay could issue. It further held that the applicant's real target was the costs order in the ruling of 23rd September 2004, against which no Notice of Appeal had been filed, depriving the Court of jurisdiction to interfere with it; the argument that the earlier decision was adopted in the later ruling was rejected as tenuous. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents. The binding propositions concern the prerequisite of an enforceable order and of a notice of appeal for a stay under rule 5(2)(b).

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a dismissal of a suit which makes no positive order can be stayed

Holding

A decision that orders no party to do or abstain from anything, or to pay any sum, is incapable of execution and no stay of execution can issue in respect of it.

Reasoning

The High Court had dismissed the applicant's suit and later an application for review, making no positive orders. The Court restated its established jurisprudence that a stay under rule 5(2)(b) presupposes an order capable of enforcement or restraint by injunction. Since the ruling of 9th February 2007 made no such order, there was nothing to stay and the application failed on that basis alone.

p. 2
02

Whether the Court could stay the costs order made in the ruling of 23rd September 2004

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with an order against which no Notice of Appeal has been filed; counsel's argument that the earlier decision was adopted in the later ruling was rejected as tenuous.

Reasoning

The applicant's real target was the costs order in the ruling of 23rd September 2004, but no Notice of Appeal was lodged against that decision. A notice of appeal existed only for the ruling of 9th February 2007. The Court held that on that ground alone it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the earlier order, and that the mere allusion to the earlier decision in the later ruling did not amount to its adoption.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • In an application under rule 5(2)(b) for stay of execution, where the court whose order is sought to be stayed has not ordered any party to do anything, refrain from doing anything, or pay any sum, there is nothing for the Court of Appeal to enforce or restrain, and no stay can issue.
  • The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to interfere with, or grant a stay relating to, an order against which no Notice of Appeal has been lodged.
  • The institution of an appeal does not operate to suspend or stay execution; a stay may only be ordered where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with rule 74.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 42
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 47
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 74
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder IXB rule 4
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder IXB rule 7(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder XLIV
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 8

Cases cited (1)

  • David Thiong'o T/A Welcome General Stores v. Market Fancy Emporium
    Civil Application No. NAI. 47 of 2007
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya, Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 849 of 2004
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 5(2)(b), 42 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for stay of execution pending intended appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "NDUNGU KINYANJUI v KIBICHOI KUGERIA SERVICES & ANOTHER [2007] KECA 138 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Civil Appli 79 of 2007 (UR52/2007). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/138/eng@2007-11-09

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