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 E068 of 2022· [2022] KECA 933 (KLR)

MJK v FML; Atticon Limited (Interested Party)

Court of Appeal
19 August 2022
2,002 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to protect a woman's claim over a Kshs 71 million property because she already had similar court orders elsewhere.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Okwengu, J. Mohammed and Mbogholi-Msagha, JJA) on a notice of motion dated 10th February 2022 by MJK seeking a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of her intended appeal against the ruling of the Environment & Land Court (Wabwoto, J.) which upheld a preliminary objection and dismissed her suit as sub judice and an abuse of process. The applicant, who claimed to have contributed over Kshs. 71 million towards construction of the suit property registered in the respondent's name, sought to restrain his eviction, disposal or dealing with the property, invoking Rule 41 of the Court of Appeal Rules, Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Article 159 of the Constitution. The respondent and interested party opposed, contending the applicant had filed multiple suits seeking the same reliefs and already enjoyed analogous interlocutory injunctions. Applying the settled twin principles under Rule 5(2)(b) as articulated in Trust Bank v Investech Bank and Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter, the court found the intended appeal arguable - particularly whether the respondent held the property in trust for the applicant - but held the appeal would not be rendered nugatory because the applicant was already enjoying analogous reliefs, including in Milimani Divorce Cause No. 272 of 2019. Having failed to establish both limbs, the application was dismissed with costs. The decision below was not disturbed; the intended appeal remains pending.

Key legal issues

#
01

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The intended appeal was arguable, including whether the respondent held the suit property in trust for the applicant.

Reasoning

The court considered the grounds in the motion and draft memorandum of appeal and found at least one bona fide arguable ground. It declined to make definitive findings lest it embarrass the bench hearing the main appeal, applying the Kang'ethe Kinyanjui formulation of an arguable appeal.

p. 4
02

Nugatory aspect

Holding

The appeal would not be rendered nugatory because the applicant already enjoys analogous reliefs in other pending suits, including Milimani Divorce Cause No. 272 of 2019.

Reasoning

The court weighed the rival claims on their merits. Relying on uncontroverted submissions by counsel for the respondent, it found the applicant had obtained and was still enjoying reliefs analogous to those sought, so declining the injunction would not render a successful appeal nugatory.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • To succeed on an application under Rule 5(2)(b), an applicant must establish both that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and that, if successful, it will be rendered nugatory absent a stay or injunction.
  • An arguable appeal need not necessarily succeed; it is one that is not frivolous and deserves full argument, and the court must not make definitive findings of fact or law at the interlocutory stage.
  • Whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible, or if not, whether damages will reasonably compensate the aggrieved party.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 10th February, 2022 is dismissed with costs
On appeal from
Environment & Land Court at Nairobi
ELC Cause No. E393 OF 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Article 159 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "MJK v FML; Atticon Limited (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E068 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/933/eng@2022-08-19

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