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. 304 of 2017

Kaltuma Abdulahim Maalim v Saadia Ahmed Mumin & 3 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
4 June 2021
1,194 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

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause a Wajir County Assembly seat court battle, confirming that an upcoming appeal alone does not justify staying proceedings.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Nambuye, Sichale and ole Kantai, JJ.A.) on a Notice of Motion dated 20th December 2017 brought under Rules 5(2)(b) and 47 of the Court's Rules by Kaltuma Abdulahim Maalim, seeking a stay of proceedings in High Court Judicial Review Application No. 576 of 2017 pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appeal from Odunga, J's ruling of 21st November 2017 granting leave to Saadia Ahmed Mumin to file the substantive judicial review application. The dispute arose from the nomination of candidates for the Gender Special seat under Article 177(2) of the Constitution for the Wajir County Assembly, a consent order before the Political Parties and Disputes Tribunal ranking the applicant first, and conflicting Gazette Notices, after which the Clerk of the Wajir County Assembly swore in the 1st respondent. The applicant's preliminary objection that the judicial review was improperly brought in place of an election petition was overruled by the High Court. Applying the settled twin test for rule 5(2)(b) relief, drawn from Ishmael Kagunyi Thande v Housing Finance Kenya Ltd, the court held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the High Court proceedings continued, since she would retain a right of recourse by way of appeal or otherwise. Having failed the second limb, the court did not consider arguability. The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Twin principles governing rule 5(2)(b) applications

Holding

The jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) is original and discretionary, guided by the settled twin principles of arguability and nugatory-ness.

Reasoning

The court adopted its prior statement in Ishmael Kagunyi Thande v Housing Finance Kenya Ltd, restating that the rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction is both original and discretionary. The applicant must demonstrate both an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent the stay or injunction sought. Both limbs are cumulative requirements for the grant of stay of proceedings.

p. 2
02

Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay

Holding

The applicant failed to establish the nugatory limb; the dismissal of the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and the continuation of the judicial review proceedings would not render any appeal nugatory because she retains appellate recourse.

Reasoning

The applicant argued that if the High Court judicial review, founded on a dispute properly sounding in an election petition, were to proceed, her intended appeal would be nugatory. The court disagreed, reasoning that even a conclusion of the proceedings below would leave the applicant with recourse by way of appeal. With the second limb unsatisfied, the court did not examine arguability and dismissed the motion.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy two well-settled principles: that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable, and that unless stay or injunction is granted the success of the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
  • Where the nugatory limb of the rule 5(2)(b) test fails, the court need not consider whether the appeal is arguable.
  • Proceedings in the High Court proceeding to conclusion does not by itself render an intended appeal nugatory, since a party retains a right of recourse by way of appeal or otherwise.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th December 2017 is dismissed with no order as to costs
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Judicial Review Appl. No. 576 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 5(2)(b) and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for stay of proceedings pending an intended appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kaltuma Abdulahim Maalim v Saadia Ahmed Mumin & 3 others", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. 304 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/508/eng@2021-06-04

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