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 AppealAllowedCivil Application E056 of 2021· [2022] KECA 441 (KLR)

Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Green Power Generation Company Limited & another

Court of Appeal
18 March 2022
3,346 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya Power won a stay of a Kshs 10 million land judgment, keeping its electricity substation running while it appeals.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Malindi (Kairu, Nyamweya and Lessit, JJA) on a Notice of Motion dated 27th September 2021 by Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, seeking stay of execution of the judgment of the Environment and Land Court (Olola J) delivered on 6th May 2020 in Malindi ELC Case No 179 of 2013. The ELC had found that the 1st Respondent validly purchased and registered the suit property, that the Applicant's continued occupation was trespass, and awarded Kshs 10 million general damages. The 1st Respondent opposed the application, contending that no competent Notice of Appeal had been filed, that the Applicant was guilty of material non-disclosure, and that the Applicant had no interest in the land and could not be rendered nugatory. The court held that the Applicant, being a party aggrieved by a judgment entered against it jointly and severally, had a right under Rule 75 to lodge its own notice of appeal, distinguishing Trade Bank Limited vs LZ Engineering Construction Ltd. It found one arguable ground sufficed and that ownership and damages grounds merited consideration. On the nugatory limb, it noted the Applicant's substantial investments and the considerable decretal sum, while the 1st Respondent would suffer no prejudice. Applying Gatirau Peter Munya, it also found a public interest element in maintaining electricity supply. The application was allowed: execution of the ELC judgment was stayed pending the intended appeal, with costs of the application abiding the appeal's outcome.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competence of the Notice of Appeal and invocation of Rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction

Holding

The Notice of Appeal was competent; the Applicant, being a party affected and aggrieved by the joint and several ELC judgment, had a right to lodge its own notice under Rule 75, and Trade Bank was distinguishable.

Reasoning

The court held that Trade Bank prohibited joint notices of appeal, requiring each appealing party to file a separate notice. The ELC judgment was against the Applicant and 2nd Respondent jointly and severally, so the Applicant was aggrieved. No evidence showed the notice had been struck out, and the 1st Respondent was not prejudiced since any stay orders would abate if the pending striking-out application succeeded.

p. 3
02

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The intended appeal was arguable, as the Applicant raised concerns on the ELC's finding on ownership of the suit property and the award of damages which merited consideration.

Reasoning

The court applied the principle that only one arguable ground is needed and arguability does not mean likely success. The draft memorandum faulted the ELC for finding the suit property was not government land, for ignoring evidence of the Applicant's occupation, and for excessive damages; these merited the Court's consideration.

p. 4
03

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory

Holding

The appeal would be rendered nugatory: the Applicant occupied the suit property with substantial investments, the Kshs 10 million decretal sum was considerable, and the 1st Respondent would suffer no prejudice since the property and damages would remain available if the appeal failed.

Reasoning

Applying the Norlake and Kinyanjui formulations, the court asked whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible or compensable in damages. The Applicant's occupation and substantial investments, plus the considerable decretal sum payable from public funds, tipped the balance; the 1st Respondent, a company of means, could still execute after the appeal.

p. 5
04

Public interest as a third condition for stay

Holding

A public interest element existed, since the Applicant continued to use the suit property for generation and supply of electricity to the public, as the ELC itself had acknowledged.

Reasoning

Relying on Gatirau Peter Munya, the court accepted that under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 a third public-interest condition may be added to the twin limbs. The substation on the suit property supplied electricity to residents of Mpeketoni and surrounding environs, sustaining businesses and livelihoods, so eviction could have irreversible effects on public infrastructure.

Legal principles established

#
  • A person affected by a decision can lodge a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal; a joint judgment against parties does not require a joint notice of appeal, and each aggrieved party may file its own notice.
  • Under Rule 5(2)(b), an applicant for stay must satisfy the twin limbs of an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; a third public-interest condition may be added under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
  • On the arguability limb, an applicant need only demonstrate one arguable ground, and an arguable appeal is not necessarily one that will succeed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Execution of the judgment of the Environment and Land Court delivered on 6th May 2020 in Malindi ELC Case No 179 of 2013 be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
  2. 2.The costs of the application dated 27th September 2021 shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 75
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 80
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 79
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 70

Cases cited (5)

  • Halai & Another vs Thornton & Turpin (1963) Ltd.
    (1990) KLR 365

    That the Court is seized of a stay application where a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with Rule 75.

  • Trade Bank Limited vs LZ Engineering Construction Ltd & others
    [1995-8] 1 EA 317

    Cited by the 1st Respondent that a joint notice of appeal is bad in law; the court distinguished it.

  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui vs Tony Ketter & 5 others
    [2013] eKLR

    Restatement of the twin limbs of arguability and nugatory-ness, and the reversibility/compensation test.

  • Bank Limited vs Norlake Investments Ltd
    [2002] 1 E.A. 227

    That 'nugatory' means not only worthless, futile or invalid, but also trifling.

  • Gatirau Peter Munya vs Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR

    That a third public-interest condition may be added to the twin limbs for stay under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
Malindi ELC Case No 179 of 2013
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, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited v Green Power Generation Company Limited & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E056 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/441/eng@2022-03-18

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