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 161 of 2020· [2022] KECA 1085 (KLR)

Narok County Government v Governors Baloon Safaris Limited & another

Court of Appeal
7 October 2022
1,371 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal paused a Kshs 20 million security deposit against Narok County, finding its claim to government exemption worth hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Narok County Government moved the Court of Appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) seeking stay of execution of part of a High Court ruling (Okwany, J., 29 May 2020) in HCCC No. 461 of 2008. The High Court had extended time for the County to file a notice of objection and reference against a taxing officer's ruling awarding the respondents Kshs. 20,165,806 in taxed costs, but conditioned those orders on the County depositing the taxed costs in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which the orders would lapse. The County argued it is a 'Government' under Articles 6(2) and 176 of the Constitution and the Government Proceedings Act, and thus exempt from security under Order 42 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules; the respondents contended the exemption applies only to the national Government and that a county government is a corporate body under Section 6 of the County Government Act. Applying the settled twin test - an arguable appeal and nugatory value - the court held the County's contention on the security exemption was arguable and that refusal of stay would render the appeal nugatory since the beneficial orders would lapse. Both limbs satisfied, the application succeeded. The court granted the stay sought in the fourth prayer, extending to the hearing and determination of the appeal, with costs of the motion in the appeal. The judgment was delivered under Rule 34(4) because Koome, JA (now Chief Justice) had left the Court of Appeal before signing it. The substantive question whether a county government enjoys the security exemption remains open for the full appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the assertion that a county government is 'Government' exempt from security under Order 42 Rule 8 CPR is an arguable ground

Holding

Yes - the court found the applicant's contention that it is a Government under the Government Proceedings Act and thus exempt from furnishing security to be arguable, without deciding it.

Reasoning

The court applied the settled Rule 5(2)(b) test. It held that the applicant's assertion, founded on Articles 6(2) and 176 of the Constitution and the Government Proceedings Act, raised a bona fide point worthy of decision by the full Court, and therefore declined to delve into the merits at the interlocutory stage.

02

Nugatory value of the intended appeal

Holding

The appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted, because the applicant would lose the benefit of the conditional order.

Reasoning

The High Court had conditioned the extension of time and stay on depositing the taxed costs, failing which the beneficial orders would lapse. Without a stay, the applicant would lose those orders and the appeal on the very issue would be of no effect, while the respondents would suffer no comparable prejudice.

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are not granted.
  • Where both limbs of the Rule 5(2)(b) test are satisfied, the application succeeds and stay extends to the hearing and determination of the appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of part of the High Court ruling of 29 May 2020 requiring deposit of Kshs. 20,165,806.00 as security, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the motion to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 6(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 176
  • Government Proceedings Act
  • County Government ActSection 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 8
  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)
  • Court of Appeal Rules (2022)Rule 34(4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui Vs. Tony Ketter & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR

    Principles for granting relief under Rule 5(2)(b) - arguable appeal and nugatory appeal.

  • Kieni Plains Co. Ltd & 2 Others Vs. Ecobank Kenya Ltd
    [2018] eKLR

    Same Rule 5(2)(b) principles.

On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
HCCC No. 461 of 2008
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules; notice of appeal against the High Court ruling

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Narok County Government v Governors Baloon Safaris Limited & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application 161 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/1085/eng@2022-10-07

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