National Environment & Management Authority v Edward Juma Masakha [2015] KECA 830 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal paused a reinstatement order against NEMA, confirming that even one arguable appeal ground can justify stopping execution of a judgment.
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 applicant had an arguable appeal
- 2.Whether, if stay is not granted and the appeal ultimately succeeds, the appeal would be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The applicant established at least one arguable point: whether the Industrial Court erred in ordering reinstatement having regard to Section 49 of the Employment Act, 2007 on practicability of reinstatement.
The court found the applicant had placed before it one arguable point concerning whether the learned Judge erred in ordering reinstatement in light of Section 49 of the Employment Act, 2007. Even the respondent's counsel appeared to concede that arguable issues featured in the appeal. That was sufficient, as a single arguable ground suffices for a stay.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused
The appeal would be rendered nugatory: recovery of sums paid would require long, costly litigation; reinstatement would destroy the substratum of the appeal; and imprisonment of the applicant's chief officer in contempt proceedings would prejudice his liberty in a way money cannot compensate.
The court reasoned that recovery of any sums disbursed to the respondent might entail separate, long and costly litigation. If reinstatement were effected, the substratum of the appeal would be gone. Further, if contempt proceedings continued and the applicant's chief officer were imprisoned, the prejudice to his liberty could hardly be compensated by money. These cumulative factors satisfied the nugatory-ness test.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed on a Rule 5(2)(b) application the applicant must satisfy two conditions: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is refused.
- A single arguable ground suffices for a stay, and an arguable appeal is not one that will necessarily succeed.
- Nugatory-ness is assessed on the facts of each case, and the Court exercises original and discretionary jurisdiction without making definitive findings on the merits.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment of the Industrial Court of Kenya at Nakuru delivered on 31st July 2014, including the orders of reinstatement and payment of withheld salary, pending the inter partes hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.Costs of the motion to be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Industrial Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- Industrial Court Case No. 214 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for stay of execution pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appeal)
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.
to succeed the applicant must satisfy two conditions in order to be granted stay orders. One, that the applicant has an arguable appeal, and two, that if stay orders are not granted and in the event the appeal succeeds eventually, it shall be rendered nugatory.
In sum, we grant the orders sought in this motion but direct that its costs be in the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains internal inconsistencies in the record below: the heading and body refer to 'Industrial Court Case No.214 of 2013' while the motion prayer and one passage refer to 'Industrial Case No.214 of 2012'; the motion also describes the judgment as 'delivered on the 13th July, 2014' while the judgment elsewhere records the decision as 'delivered on 31st July, 2014'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "National Environment & Management Authority v Edward Juma Masakha [2015] KECA 830 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. NAI.234 of 2014 (UR 182/2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/830/eng@2015-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.