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 132 of 2018· [2021] KECA 815 (KLR)

Jackson Kamau Ndegwa v Hon. Attorney General & 7 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
19 March 2021
1,516 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed you cannot get a stay of an order that strikes out your case, because there is nothing to execute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Jackson Kamau Ndegwa, filed a constitutional petition at the High Court in Nakuru (Petition No. 29 of 2017) alleging violation of his rights in relation to Land Parcel No. Nakuru Municipality/Block 12/223, his claimed prime matrimonial home, which had been attached and sold by public auction pursuant to orders in Nairobi Children's Case No. 148 of 2004. He had also sued the 4th to 6th respondents over the transfer in ELC No. 359 of 2013. Lagat-Korir, J. struck out the petition on 26th September 2018, finding the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the respondents violated the Articles of the Constitution. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal and brought a motion under sections 3A, 3B, 4 and 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 5 and 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking stay of the ruling and restraint of criminal proceedings in CMCR 1130/2013 pending appeal. The respondents filed no response. The Court, Koome, M'inoti and Murgor, JJ.A., in a single ruling, applied the settled twin principles for Rule 5(2)(b) relief: arguability and nugatory effect. Holding that the striking-out was a negative order, incapable of execution, the Court found nothing to stay and further held that the applicant had not demonstrated nugatory effect, being at liberty to pursue his claims in the ELC suit or to appeal the Children's Court orders. The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs on 19th March 2021.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an order striking out a petition, which is a negative order, is capable of being stayed

Holding

The Court held that the trial court's striking out of the petition was a negative order that ordered no party to do or refrain from doing anything, and therefore there is nothing to stay

Reasoning

Relying on a consistent line of Court of Appeal authority including Kaushik Panchamatia and Co-operative Bank of Kenya, the Court adopted the principle from Western College that where a court merely dismisses or strikes out a suit, the only thing capable of execution would be costs. Since the trial judge made no positive order and directed no party to do anything, the jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b) was not engaged. The Court described itself as of a firm view on this point.

p. 2
02

Whether the intended appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory absent a stay

Holding

The applicant failed to demonstrate nugatory effect because he retained alternative remedies, namely litigating in ELC No. 359 of 2013 or appealing the Children's Court orders

Reasoning

Even setting aside the negative-order point, the Court found the nugatory limb of the Rule 5(2)(b) test unmet. The applicant's complaints about the sale of the suit land and the alleged violation of his property rights remained live in the pending ELC suit, and any grievance with the Children's Court orders could be pursued by way of appeal. The failure of both limbs of the twin test was fatal to the motion, which was dismissed without costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A negative order - one which does not order any party to do anything or refrain from doing anything - is incapable of execution and no stay of execution can be granted in respect of it
  • An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate both that the intended appeal is arguable and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory unless the stay or injunction is granted

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 9th October, 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.No order as to costs
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
Petition No. 29 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A, 3B, 4 & 5 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9) and Rules 5 & 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules, particularly Rule 5(2)(b)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jackson Kamau Ndegwa v Hon. Attorney General & 7 others", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. NYR 132 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/815/eng@2021-03-19

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