SANGUI & 11 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the person and families residing on what is commonly known as Kedong Ranch situated on LR. No. 8396 (LR. No. 11977) v KEDONG RANCH LIMITED (Civil Application 55 of 2015) [2015] KECA 480 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot get a stay of a High Court decision that simply dismissed your suit — you need different relief, like an injunction.
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 principles governing the exercise of the Court's discretion under rule 5(2)(b) — an arguable appeal and nugatoriness — have been met
- 2.Whether an order dismissing a suit can be stayed under rule 5(2)(b)
Key legal issues
#Whether an order dismissing a suit is capable of being stayed under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
A dismissal order is not a positive order requiring any party to do or refrain from doing anything; it confers no relief, is not enforceable by execution, and cannot be stayed. Only a costs order remains enforceable.
Following Western College v Oranga, Devani v Ngindari and Wahome v Registrar of Trade Unions, the court reasoned that dismissal of a suit merely determines that the claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought; it grants the successful party no positive order capable of execution other than costs. A stay under rule 5(2)(b) presupposes an order that can be put on hold; since none exists, the application fails at that threshold without needing to weigh arguability or nugatory effect.
Whether the applicants met the twin principles of an arguable appeal and nugatory effect
Although the draft memorandum of appeal showed the appeal was arguable, the application failed because there was no order capable of being stayed.
The court found the intended grounds of appeal demonstrated an arguable appeal, noting that an arguable appeal need not be one bound to succeed. However, it observed the applicants had not sought an injunction permitting them to remain on the land pending appeal, and held the rule 5(2)(b) principles could not be satisfied where the impugned decision contains no order capable of being stayed. The threshold defect was therefore fatal irrespective of arguability.
Legal principles established
#- An order dismissing a suit is not a positive order capable of execution or enforcement and cannot be stayed under rule 5(2)(b); the twin principles of arguability and nugatory effect presuppose an order capable of being stayed.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated 4th March, 2015
- 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 Nakuru
- H.C.C.C. No. 21 of 2010 (O.S)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9) and rule 5(2)(b), 41 and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Stay of the orders of the High Court judgment pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The High Court merely dismissed the suit; a dismissal order is not a positive order capable of execution or enforcement and cannot be stayed.
Costs
No order as to costs - each party to bear their own 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.
The act of dismissal of the suit could not be stayed. It is our finding that to the extent to which the application seeks stay of the order of the dismissal of the suit it cannot be granted.
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Rules of this Court on which the application is premised confers on us independent discretionary jurisdiction exercisable in accordance with the twin principles, namely, that the appeal must be shown to be arguable and, in addition, that the appeal, if successful, shall be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the notice of motion dated 4th March, 2015 which we hereby dismiss. We make no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the High Court judgment: it is twice stated as delivered on 30th January 2015 and once as 30th July 2015.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Lodwar Wholesalers v Commissioner of Investigation & Enforcement , Kenya Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal (Application) E498 of 2023) [2024] KECA 280 (KLR)[2024] KECA 280 (KLR)8 Mar 2024applied
- Nagda v Morjaria (Civil Application E010 of 2022) [2023] KECA 967 (KLR)[2023] KECA 967 (KLR)28 Jul 2023applied
- County Secretary of Kajiado & 47 others v Salaries & Remuneration Commission & another [2021] KECA 817 (KLR)[2021] KECA 817 (KLR)19 Mar 2021followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "SANGUI & 11 others (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the person and families residing on what is commonly known as Kedong Ranch situated on LR. No. 8396 (LR. No. 11977) v KEDONG RANCH LIMITED (Civil Application 55 of 2015) [2015] KECA 480 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. NAI 55 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/480/eng@2015-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.