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 AppealDismissedKisumu Civil Application No. 151 of 2019· [2020] KECA 197 (KLR)

Caleb Ouma & 5 others v Seventh Day Adventist Church (East Africa Ltd) [2020] KECA 197 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
20 November 2020
852 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to stop an eviction because the applicants never filed a notice of appeal against that order and dismissal orders cannot be stayed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judgment ruling of a three-member bench of the Court of Appeal (Kiage, Sichale and J. Mohammed, JJ.A) delivered in Nairobi on 20th November 2020 on a motion dated 28th November 2019 under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking stay of execution pending appeal from a ruling of Ombwayo, J. of the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu dated 22nd November 2019 in ELC No. 806 of 2015. The applicants sought to stay a 'consequential decree' dated 18th September 2019, described as arising from a ruling delivered later, a formulation the Court found 'curious and clever' and calculated to conceal fatal defects. The Court held that its Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction flows from a notice of appeal, which must relate to the order impugned and whose execution is sought to be stayed. The applicants had not filed any notice of appeal against the 18th September 2019 eviction order, which gave effect to a 16th May 2018 judgment of mandatory injunction, depriving the Court of jurisdiction to stay it. Further, the 18th September 2019 order under challenge in the ruling was the dismissal of an application for review - a negative order incapable of execution - and the Court, following its precedents including Western College of Arts & Applied Sciences v Oranga, cannot stay a negative order nor issue a stay where there is nothing to stay. The motion was dismissed with costs to the respondent. The decision below was not disturbed; this was an interlocutory application, and the ruling binds subordinate courts on the incompetency of staying negative orders and orders not the subject of a notice of appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to stay execution of an order not the subject of a notice of appeal

Holding

The Court lacks jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b) to stay execution of an order against which no notice of appeal has been filed; the applicants' failure to file a notice of appeal against the 18th September 2019 eviction order deprived the Court of jurisdiction over it.

Reasoning

The central document from which the Court's Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction flows is a notice of appeal, and that notice must relate to the order or decree impugned on the intended appeal and whose execution is sought to be stayed. The applicants' motion and notice of appeal targeted only the 22nd November 2019 ruling, not the 18th September 2019 eviction order, though their prayer was calculated to reach the latter. No appeal lay against either the judgment or the eviction order, so the Court could not entertain a stay of that order.

p. 1
02

Whether a negative order is capable of execution and hence of being stayed

Holding

A negative order, such as the dismissal of an application for review, is not capable of execution and therefore cannot be stayed; the Court has no jurisdiction to stay where there is nothing to stay.

Reasoning

The dismissal of the applicants' application to review and set aside the 18th September 2019 order was a negative order. The Court, following its own precedents including Western College of Arts & Applied Sciences v Oranga, held that it cannot stay a negative order and has no jurisdiction to grant a stay or injunction where the court below has issued no executable order. Since the respondents had nothing to execute under the dismissed review application, the stay sought was incompetent.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The Court cannot stay a negative order and will not issue an order of stay where there is nothing to stay.
  • The Court has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction or stay where the court appealed from has not issued an executable order.
  • A notice of appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) must relate to the order or decree impugned on the intended appeal, and the Court has no jurisdiction to stay execution of an order against which no notice of appeal has been filed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The motion dated 28th November 2019 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (3)

  • Republic vs. Kenya Wildlife Service & 2 Others
    [2007] eKLR
  • George Ole Sangui & 12 Others vs. Kedong Ranch Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Western College of Arts & Applied Sciences vs. Oranga & Others
    [1976] KLR 63
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Kisumu
ELC No. 806 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Caleb Ouma & 5 others v Seventh Day Adventist Church (East Africa Ltd) [2020] KECA 197 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Kisumu Civil Application No. 151 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/197/eng@2020-11-20

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