Muriuki v Muriuki & 6 others

Relying on Equity Bank v West Link MBO and Safaricom v Ocean View Beach Hotel, the Court held that Rule 5(2)(b) is a procedural innovation for interlocutory applications in pending appeals. A Notice of Appeal filed against the Court of Appeal's own decision for a Supreme Court appeal does not trigger the Rule, since the Court's jurisdiction under it attaches to appeals from the High Court or statutory tribunals.

The Court reasoned that upon delivery of judgment all issues have been canvassed, the rights of the parties determined, and the decree should be executed. Allowing stay orders after judgment merely because a party intends to appeal to the Supreme Court would destroy finality of litigation within the court hierarchy, especially as most cases now end at the Court of Appeal.

While accepting the Court has inherent power to ensure justice is done, the Court held that whether the intended Supreme Court appeal would be rendered nugatory depends on whether leave is granted; since the leave application was pending separately, the Court could not make that determination, and the applicant had put the cart before the horse.

Distinguishing Malcolm Bell, where the Supreme Court held it could issue interlocutory orders within its appellate jurisdiction, the Court held that the Court of Appeal's role post-judgment is restricted to certification under Article 163(4)(b); once leave or certification is granted, the Supreme Court can grant interlocutory reliefs.