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 AppealDismissedNotice of motion dated 13th October, 2020· [2021] KECA 195 (KLR)

Kaudo (suing as the Clerk Homa Bay County Assembly) v Speaker Homa Bay County Assembly & 8 others (Civil Application 119 of 2020) [2021] KECA 195 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
5 November 2021
1,763 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause an order blocking the Homa Bay County Assembly Clerk from taking office, because you cannot 'stay' an order that merely forbids action.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Daniel Odhiambo Kaudo, suing as the Clerk of Homa Bay County Assembly, moved the Court of Appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking a temporary stay of an order made by Nduma Nderi, J. of the ELRC in Kisumu on 2nd October 2020, restraining him from assuming office as Clerk pending the hearing of a consolidated petition, and leave to assume and access his place of work. He argued that his rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 had been breached and that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory. The respondents, through the Speaker, maintained that the applicant was never substantively appointed Clerk and that the impugned order was a negative order incapable of execution, relying on Giant Holdings Limited v Kenya Airports Authority. The Court, per Okwengu, Kiage and Mohammed, JJA, in a single unanimous judgment, restated the twin-limb test from Trust Bank v Investech and Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui. It found the intended appeal arguable on the Article 47 ground but held that the impugned order was a negative order incapable of execution, so there was nothing to stay and the appeal could not be rendered nugatory. Following Raphael Kakene Muloki and Raymond M. Omboga, it held that the applicant must establish both limbs. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents. The judgment is interlocutory and binds no determination of the main appeal, but it binds lower courts on the rule that negative orders are incapable of stay.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal was arguable

Holding

The intended appeal was arguable on the ground that the applicant's rights to fair administrative action under Article 47 may have been breached.

Reasoning

The Court applied the test in Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter: an arguable appeal need not succeed, it need only not be frivolous and deserve full argument. It found a single bona fide arguable ground regarding Article 47 fair administrative action, while expressly declining to make definitive findings that would embarrass the bench hearing the main appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay

Holding

No. The impugned ELRC order was a negative order incapable of execution and there was nothing to stay.

Reasoning

The learned Judge had simply ordered that the applicant should not take office until the petition was heard and determined. Drawing on the reasoning in Raphael Kakene Muloki and Raymond M. Omboga, the Court held that where there is no positive order in favour of the respondent capable of execution, there can be no stay, and the applicant would simply remain in the position he was in before coming to court.

p. 4
03

Cumulative nature of the twin limbs under Rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

An applicant must establish both the arguability and the nugatory limbs; satisfying one alone is insufficient.

Reasoning

Although the Court found the appeal arguable, the failure of the nugatory limb was fatal. The Court reiterated the principles in Trust Bank Limited v Investech Bank Limited that the jurisdiction is original and discretionary, guided by the interests of justice, and both guiding principles must be considered against the facts and circumstances of each case.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • To succeed under Rule 5(2)(b) an applicant must establish both that the appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory absent stay; both limbs must be satisfied.
  • A negative order, such as an order dismissing an application or an order that nothing be done, is incapable of execution and therefore incapable of being stayed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 13th October, 2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)
  • County Assembly Services ActSection 19
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 47

Cases cited (5)

  • Giant Holdings Limited vs. Kenya Airports Authority
    [2010] eKLR
  • Trust Bank Limited and Another v. Investech Bank Limited and 3 Others
    [2000] eKLR
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Raphael Kakene Muloki & another v Cabinet Secretary of Lands and 2 Others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Raymond M. Omboga v Austin Pyan Maranga
    Kisii HCCA No 15 of 2020
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisumu
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, "Kaudo (suing as the Clerk Homa Bay County Assembly) v Speaker Homa Bay County Assembly & 8 others (Civil Application 119 of 2020) [2021] KECA 195 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of motion dated 13th October, 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/195/eng@2021-11-05

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