Christine Wangari Chege v John Juma Weroba & 3 others [2021] KECA 834 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to pause the taxation of legal fees because showing an appeal is arguable alone is not enough to get a stay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal was arguable
Yes. The issues the applicant intended to raise - whether she instructed the advocates personally or as administrator, and whether similar bills should be taxed in one station - were not frivolous.
The court applied the settled test that an arguable appeal is not one that must succeed or raise a multiplicity of issues; it is enough that a single bona fide issue deserving of consideration is raised. The issues framed by the applicant were held to be non-frivolous, so the arguability limb was satisfied.
Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if taxation proceeded
No. The bills had not been filed arbitrarily but in the courts where the services were rendered, and any objections to the bills were matters for the taxing masters in the first instance.
The court noted the bills of costs were yet to be taxed and were filed in the causes where the legal services were rendered. Even if filed arbitrarily, that would be for the taxing master to deal with in the first instance. The applicant could raise all objections before the taxing masters, so the appeal would not be rendered academic or nugatory.
Whether both rule 5(2)(b) requirements were met
No. Having satisfied only the arguability limb and failed the nugatory limb, the application necessarily failed.
The court restated that an applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must establish both arguability and nugatory-ness, and that establishing only one does not suffice. Since the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory, the application was dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution or stay of proceedings under rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate both that the intended appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory if it succeeds; satisfying only one limb is insufficient
- An arguable appeal need not necessarily succeed nor raise a multiplicity of issues; it suffices that it raises even a single bona fide issue deserving of full consideration
- It is the taxing master before whom a bill of costs is filed who has jurisdiction to tax it and to determine any objection by the parties, in the first instance
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay of execution and stay of further proceedings/taxation pending the intended appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- Misc. Civil Application No. 23 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (stay of execution pending an intended appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Christine Wangari Chege v John Juma Weroba & 3 others [2021] KECA 834 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. NYR. 23 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/834/eng@2021-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.