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. NYR 121 of 2020· [2021] KECA 766 (KLR)

Hon. Fatuma Adan Dullo & 4 others v Cabinet Secretary Lands & Physical Planning & 1 other

Court of Appeal
19 March 2021
1,100 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused to stop community land adjudication in Isiolo County, finding the applicants did not meet the strict two-part test for injunctions pending appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nyeri (Koome, M'Inoti and Murgor, JJ.A.) on the applicants' application for an injunction pending an intended appeal against the decision of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (Mbugua, J.) of 18th November 2020, which dismissed their application for conservatory orders seeking to prohibit adjudication of community land in Isiolo County under the Land Adjudication Act. The adjudication had been initiated by the Cabinet Secretary, Lands and Physical Planning, through Legal Notice No. 150 of 2019, as amended by Legal Notice No. 1 of 2020. The applicants contended that the County Government had not requested the adjudication, that there was no public participation, and that the process was therefore arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. The trial judge found that 38 public participation exercises had been carried out in ten wards, that some applicants had themselves supported the process, and that the application was not brought in good faith. Before the Court of Appeal, the applicants argued that the intended appeal was arguable and that refusal of the injunction would render it nugatory. Applying the twin test under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the court held that the applicants, who were attacking an exercise of judicial discretion, had not demonstrated misapplication of the conservatory-order principles, nor that the appeal would be rendered nugatory in light of the wider public interest, the parties' respective hardships and the balance of convenience. The application was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal. The respondents did not file submissions despite service, but the court stressed this did not relieve the applicants of their burden.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicants met the twin test for an injunction pending appeal under rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

The application was dismissed because the applicants failed to satisfy the twin test of arguability and nugatory-ness; the court was not persuaded the learned judge misdirected herself in declining conservatory orders.

Reasoning

The court reiterated that an applicant must show the intended appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory without the injunction. The applicants were attacking an exercise of judicial discretion, which the Court of Appeal does not readily disturb; they had to demonstrate misapplication of the conservatory-order principles. The court found they would be hard-pressed to show the judge acted other than judiciously, and that public interest, hardship and balance of convenience did not favour stopping the adjudication.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for an injunction under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules must first show the intended appeal is arguable, and second that it will be rendered nugatory unless the injunction is granted.
  • An appellate court does not readily interfere with the exercise of discretion by a superior court; a party challenging conservatory orders must demonstrate misapplication of the principles governing them.
  • Whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory is to be assessed in light of the wider public interest, the respective hardships of the parties, and the balance of convenience.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for injunction pending appeal is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Meru
ELC. Pet No. 28 of 2019
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, "Hon. Fatuma Adan Dullo & 4 others v Cabinet Secretary Lands & Physical Planning & 1 other", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. NYR 121 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/766/eng@2021-03-19

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