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 AppealDismissedNotice of motion dated 13th May, 2019 (Civil Application)· [2022] KECA 73 (KLR)

Dewdrop Enterprises Limited v Martin Bright Etindi & 1 other

Court of Appeal
4 February 2022
1,473 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

#

The Court of Appeal refused a landlord's request to preserve its position pending appeal, confirming that courts only protect you when there's a real order at risk.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court of Appeal (Nambuye, Mohammed and ole Kantai, JJ.A) at Nairobi dismissed a notice of motion dated 13th May 2019 brought by Dewdrop Enterprises Limited under Rules 5(2)(b) and 45(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, together with several constitutional articles. The applicant, landlord and registered proprietor of the suit property in Ongata Rongai, had its petition against its tenant dismissed by the High Court (R. Nyakundi, J.) on 17th February 2019 with no order as to costs. Pending an intended appeal, the applicant sought an injunction compelling the tenant to supply a copy of his replying affidavit filed in the High Court, and a temporary injunction restraining breach of the tenancy agreement. The court restated the settled twin principles for Rule 5(2)(b) relief from Trust Bank v Investech Bank: an arguable intended appeal and the risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent the orders sought. Relying on Devani v Joseph Ngindari and Equity Bank v Mbo Limited, the court held that the dismissal of the petition with no order as to costs meant no positive order existed in favour of the respondents capable of enforcement or preservation by injunction; the orders sought would have had the indirect effect of reviving the dismissed petition, which the Court of Appeal cannot undo before hearing the appeal. The applicant therefore failed to establish the twin principles, and the application was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent. The decision does not disturb the High Court ruling; it is an interlocutory refusal preserving the position until the appeal is heard.

Key legal issues

#
01

The twin principles governing Rule 5(2)(b) applications

Holding

The jurisdiction under Rule 5(2)(b) is original and discretionary, guided by the interests of justice, and requires an arguable appeal and the risk that the appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory.

Reasoning

The court restated the settled principles from Trust Bank Limited v Investech Bank Limited: an applicant must first show that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable, meaning not frivolous, and secondly that unless a stay is granted the appeal, if successful, will be rendered nugatory. These principles are considered against the facts and circumstances of each case. The applicant, as the party seeking injunctive relief, bore the burden of establishing both limbs.

p. 2
02

Whether an injunction may issue where the order below dismissed the petition with no order as to costs

Holding

No: where the High Court dismissed the petition and granted no positive order in favour of the respondents, there is nothing capable of enforcement by way of injunction; granting the order sought would have the indirect effect of reviving the dismissed petition, which the Court of Appeal cannot do before hearing the appeal.

Reasoning

Applying Devani v Joseph Ngindari, the court held that a dismissal with no order as to costs grants no relief capable of execution. The injunctions sought - one compelling supply of a replying affidavit and one restraining breach of the tenancy agreement - would effectively revive the dismissed petition. Having failed to identify an executable order and to satisfy the twin principles, the applicant's motion had to fail.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must show that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable, not frivolous, and that if successful it will be rendered nugatory absent the stay or injunction sought.
  • Where the superior court dismissed a claim and made no positive order in favour of the other side, there is no order capable of execution or preservation by injunction under Rule 5(2)(b); the appellate court cannot undo the dismissal before hearing the appeal.
  • Rule 5(2)(b) is a procedural innovation designed for preservation of the subject matter of the appeal to ensure just and effective determination of appeals.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 13th May, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
On appeal from
High Court
Petition No. 13 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 5(2)(b) and 45(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, with Articles 20(4), 35(1), 35(2), 40(1), 47, 50, 159(2) & 259(1) of the Constitution invoked by the applicant

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Dewdrop Enterprises Limited v Martin Bright Etindi & 1 other", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of motion dated 13th May, 2019 (Civil Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/73/eng@2022-02-04

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