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. NAI 51 of 2019 (as inferred from the application dated 8th February 2019; not expressly stated)· [2021] KECA 429 (KLR)

Kembi & Muhia Advocates v George Otiato Mbaye & 1 other

Court of Appeal
9 July 2021
815 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

#

The Court of Appeal refused to pause a land case because the law firm did not prove its appeal was strong or that waiting would cause serious harm.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge-panel ruling (delivered by a bench of Nambuye, Karanja and Okwengu JJA) of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi dismissing an application dated 8th February 2019 by the law firm of Kembi & Muhia Advocates. The applicant, the 2nd defendant before Gitumbi J in ELC Cause No. 870 of 2013, had its case deemed closed for non-attendance on 18th September 2017. An application to reopen was allowed on 27th September 2018, but on 26th November 2018 the trial Judge declined to await determination of a stay application dated 15th November 2018 and directed the hearing of the main suit to proceed. Leave to appeal was granted, and the applicant sought, under Articles 50(1) and 159(2) of the Constitution, Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 5(2)(b) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, a stay of further proceedings in the ELC suit pending the intended appeal. Hearing notices were served by email on 1st March 2021, but by the hearing on 16th March 2021 no party had responded, filed submissions or filed a replying affidavit. The Court, troubled by the parties' unresponsiveness and the paucity of material on the current status of the suit, declined to grant orders that might stay what had already taken place. It further found the application failed to meet the Rule 5(2)(b) threshold. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The decision of the trial court was not disturbed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of proceedings should be granted under Rule 5(2)(b) pending the intended appeal

Holding

The application was dismissed as it failed to meet the Rule 5(2)(b) threshold and there was insufficient material showing the current status of the suit

Reasoning

The Court noted that hearing notices were served but no responses, submissions or replying affidavits were filed, leaving the Court without information on the current status of the matter. It was concerned that any stay order might relate to events that had already occurred. On the merits, the applicant did not demonstrate the twin requirements for a Rule 5(2)(b) order - an arguable appeal and nugatory aspect. The application was accordingly found devoid of merit and dismissed with no order as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the established threshold, including that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the order is not granted; an application unsupported by material demonstrating this fails

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 8th February 2019 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court, Nairobi
ELC Cause No. 870 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 5(2)(b) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010; Section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Articles 50(1) and 159(2) of the Constitution (invoked by the applicant)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kembi & Muhia Advocates v George Otiato Mbaye & 1 other", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. NAI 51 of 2019 (as inferred from the application dated 8th February 2019; not expressly stated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/429/eng@2021-07-09

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