Sojanmi Springfields Limited v Githinji & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E024 of 2022) [2023] KECA 22 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal in Nakuru paused contempt orders that would have shut down a farm, because the trial judge may have ordered more than the parties asked for.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has an arguable appeal, specifically whether the learned judge of the ELC went beyond the scope of the parties' pleadings in issuing orders not sought in the contempt application
- 2.Whether, unless stay of execution of the ruling of January 27, 2022 and the consequent orders of February 8, 2022 is granted, the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Arguable appeal under rule 5(2)(b)
The applicant had an arguable appeal, not necessarily destined to succeed, on whether the ELC judge went beyond the scope of the parties' pleadings.
The court perused the draft memorandum of appeal annexed to the motion and was satisfied on a cursory perusal that an arguable appeal worthy of consideration existed, particularly on the question whether the judge issued orders ultra vires the pleadings. The court refrained from making definitive findings to avoid embarrassing the bench eventually seized of the main appeal.
Nugatory value of the appeal
The appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not issued, as the decommissioning orders were irreversible and would irreparably harm the applicant.
The applicant submitted that the decommissioning orders would leave remaining greenhouses without a dam or water pan for run-off, an irreversible action detrimental to the environment. The court accepted that without stay the applicant would suffer irreparably and the appeal would be rendered nugatory, satisfying the second limb of the rule 5(2)(b) test.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the twin principles of an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory unless stay is granted.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the ruling of the Environment & Land Court at Nakuru delivered in Nakuru ELC No. 405 of 2019 on January 27, 2022 and the consequent order issued on February 8, 2022 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Costs of the motion to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment & Land Court at Nakuru
- Nakuru ELC No. 405 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
the applicant’s motion dated May 31, 2022, is merited and the same is hereby allowed in terms of prayer 3 thereof
The costs of this motion shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal. It is so ordered.
An applicant must satisfy the court on both the twin principles.
In considering an application brought under rule 5(2) (b), the court must not make definitive or final findings of either fact or law at that stage as doing so may embarrass the ultimate hearing of the main appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the 2nd to 5th respondents are not stated in the judgment; only the 1st respondent (Jane Wagathuitu Githinji) is named.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sojanmi Springfields Limited v Githinji & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E024 of 2022) [2023] KECA 22 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Application No. E053 of 2022 (Nakuru). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/22/eng@2023-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.