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 Application No. 71 of 2016 (UR 52/16)· [2017] KECA 426 (KLR)

Registered Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya v James Maina Maigwa & 2 others [2017] KECA 426 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
7 June 2017
1,280 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused to pause three priests' reinstatement, ruling that embarrassment at obeying a court order is not enough for a stay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri (Waki, Nambuye and Kiage, JJ.A) on the Registered Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya's motion dated 7th October 2016 under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri (Ongaya, J) of 9th September 2016. The court below had held the termination of three priests' employment unlawful, ordered their reinstatement to full priestly employment as from 1st October 2016, and awarded them various sums totalling Kshs 6,888,590, including Kshs 2 million each for psychological trauma. An earlier stay application before the trial court had been granted on terms requiring the applicant to deposit Kshs 6 million into a joint interest-earning account by 1st November 2016, which was not complied with; the applicant instead offered to deposit the entire decretal sum. The issue narrowed to whether reinstatement pending appeal would render the appeal nugatory. The court accepted arguability, the respondents conceding the quantum of the psychological trauma award was contestable. Applying Kinyanjui v Ketter, Reliance Bank v Norlake and Githunguri v Jimba Credit Corporation, it held that both limbs must be established, that an appeal is nugatory only if interim harm makes eventual success academic, and that mere inconvenience or embarrassment at complying with a court order does not meet the test. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal was arguable

Holding

The first limb of arguability was satisfied because the respondent conceded that the award of Kshs 2 million for psychological trauma was properly contestable on appeal.

Reasoning

The court noted the memorandum of appeal raised complaints including failure to consider the circumstances of the terminations, the practicability of reinstatement, and the excessive award for psychological trauma. Counsel for the respondents conceded quantum was contestable. Applying Kinyanjui v Ketter, the court held a single bona fide arguable ground suffices; the appeal need not necessarily succeed, only be non-frivolous.

p. 2
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if reinstatement were not stayed

Holding

No. The nugatory aspect was not established; the applicant's objections amounted to embarrassment rather than real, irreversible hardship.

Reasoning

The applicant argued the respondents' sensitive church positions were untenable following sodomy and homosexuality accusations read to congregations. The court held the loss of trust argument was easily falsified, spoke more to the applicant's embarrassment at obeying the court order than real hardship, and that reinstatement posed no prejudicial or irreversible loss since the respondents could simply be relieved of duties if the appeal succeeded.

p. 3
03

Meaning of 'nugatory' in Rule 5(2)(b) applications

Holding

Nugatory means worthless, futile, trifling or of no value, and is a question of fact dependent on the peculiar circumstances of each case.

Reasoning

The court derived the term's meaning from its Latin root and its case law, holding that an appeal is nugatory if eventual success would turn out merely academic because great harm, loss or prejudice has occurred in the interim. It is always fact-specific and cannot be determined in the abstract.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An arguable appeal is not one that must necessarily succeed; it need only be non-frivolous, and a single bona fide arguable ground suffices.
  • An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must establish BOTH an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent a stay; failure on either limb is fatal.
  • An appeal is nugatory if its eventual success would be merely academic by reason of some great harm, loss or prejudice occurring in the interim; mere inconvenience or embarrassment at compliance with a court order does not suffice.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for stay of execution dated 7th October 2016 is dismissed with costs to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (3)

  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui vs. Tony Ketter & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Reliance Bank Ltd vs. Norlake Investments Ltd
    [2002] 1 EA 232
  • Githunguri vs. Jimba Credit Corporation Ltd
    [1988] KLR 838
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nyeri
Employment & Labour Cause No. 190 of 2015 (Consolidated with Causes Nos. 192 & 193 of 2015)
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Registered Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya v James Maina Maigwa & 2 others [2017] KECA 426 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Application No. 71 of 2016 (UR 52/16). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/426/eng@2017-06-07

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