Law Society of Kenya v Deynes Muriithi & 34 others [2015] KECA 686 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal paused a High Court ruling against LSK levies for its Arbitration Centre, provided disputed monies are held in a joint interest-earning account.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Invocation of rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction
The Court's jurisdiction was properly invoked because a notice of appeal dated 12th January 2015 had been lodged
The jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) only arises where a notice of appeal has been lodged against the decision appealed from. The applicant lodged its notice of appeal on 12th January 2015 following the ruling of Mumbi Ngugi, J. of 9th January 2015, so the threshold requirement for the Court to entertain the application was met.
Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The intended appeal is arguable; several arguable points were identified, including the trial judge's appraisal of the facts, alleged absence of constitutional violations, public interest, contradictory orders and alleged bias
Applying the settled twin-principles test, the Court perused the draft memorandum of appeal and found the grounds raised bona fide issues warranting consideration by the Court. It reiterated that an appeal need not succeed to be arguable and that a single arguable point suffices; here several were identified, so the first limb was satisfied.
Whether the orders to be stayed are positive orders capable of being stayed
All three orders of the High Court were positive orders requiring the applicant to do something, and none was a negative order of dismissal or striking out; they are therefore capable of being stayed
The respondents argued that the impugned orders were negative and incapable of execution. The Court examined the three orders reproduced in the application and found they required the applicant to act positively - to stay resolutions, refrain from compelling payment, and release information - and did not constitute dismissals or striking-out orders, so the nugatory-ingredient hurdle on that account failed.
Availability of the relief sought in prayer 2
The order sought in prayer 2 (liberty to apply) is alien to the three orders recognized under rule 5(2)(b) and was not granted
Relying on its prior jurisprudence, the Court held that only an order staying proceedings, an order staying execution of the superior court's orders, and an injunction are available under rule 5(2)(b). Liberty to apply falls outside that catalogue, consistent with prior authority where jurisdiction to grant reliefs alien to the rule was declined.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under rule 5(2)(b) is original, independent and discretionary, and arises only where a notice of appeal has been lodged
- An applicant for relief under rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate both that the intended appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted; both limbs must co-exist
- An arguable appeal need not succeed; it suffices that it raises a bona fide issue worthy of consideration, and a single arguable point suffices
- Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction extends only to three orders: stay of proceedings, stay of execution of the superior court's orders, and an injunction; other reliefs are alien to the rule
- Positive orders of the superior court requiring a party to do something are capable of being stayed; negative orders of dismissal or striking out are not
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the ruling and order of the High Court made on 9th January 2015 in High Court Petition No. 507 of 2014 granted in terms of prayer (1), i.e. on condition that monies due from the respondents towards the construction of the LSK International Arbitration Centre be deposited in an interest-earning account in the joint names of learned counsel for all parties, to be opened in a sound financial institution mutually agreed upon within thirty (30) days of the reading of the Ruling
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C. Petition No. 507 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 5(2)(b) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Dominon Petroleum Kenya Ltd & another v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes[2026] KECA 1806 (KLR)25 Sept 2026
- Ririani v Adan & another (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 189 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 8108 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8108 (KLR)20 Nov 2025applied
- Optica Kenya Limited v Aya Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E008 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7025 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7025 (KLR)16 Oct 2025
- Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya (Civil Application 133 of 2015) [2015] KECA 353 (KLR)[2015] KECA 353 (KLR)2 Oct 2015applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Law Society of Kenya v Deynes Muriithi & 34 others [2015] KECA 686 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. NAI 11 of 2015 (UR. 11/2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/686/eng@2015-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.