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 No. E205 of 2021 (Notice of Motion dated January 24, 2022)· [2023] KECA 139 (KLR)

Astonfield Solesa Solar Kenya Limited v Beyond The Grid Solar Fund, Llc & 1 other

Court of Appeal of Kenya
17 February 2023
2,151 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause a multi-million dollar judgment because the winning side is a financial institution that can repay the money if the appeal succeeds.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Asike-Makhandia, Mohammed and Omondi, JJA) on a notice of motion dated January 24, 2022 by Astonfield Solesa Solar Kenya Limited seeking stay of execution of a High Court ruling (Majanja, J.) of December 22, 2021. The High Court had struck out the applicant's defence in a loan recovery suit and entered judgment for the respondents, US financial institutions, for USD 3,584,563.86 with interest at 10.75% per annum. The application was brought under sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The court restated the twin principles: the applicant must demonstrate both that the appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused, citing Trust Bank v Investech and Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter. The court found the appeal arguable, since whether the defence raised triable issues - including pleaded material adverse effects such as the Covid-19 pandemic and electioneering - deserved full ventilation. However, the nugatory limb failed: it was uncontested that the respondents are sound financial institutions capable of refunding the decretal amount if the appeal succeeds, following Integrated Wood Complex. Having failed to satisfy both limbs, the applicant's motion was dismissed with costs to the respondents on February 17, 2023. The appeal against the High Court ruling remains pending; this decision binds no merits determination and the court expressly avoided findings that would embarrass the bench hearing the main appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal is arguable under rule 5(2)(b)

Holding

The intended appeal is arguable because it raises the question whether the defence raised any triable issue, but the court made no definitive findings

Reasoning

The court applied the settled test that only a single bona fide arguable ground is required. The memorandum of appeal raised ten grounds, including that the High Court judge struck out the defence without finding triable issues and made assumptions that could only be resolved at trial with evidence. Without embarrassing the bench seized of the main appeal, the court was satisfied the appeal was arguable.

p. 4
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted

Holding

The appeal would not be rendered nugatory because the respondents are sound financial institutions capable of refunding the decretal amount if the appeal succeeds

Reasoning

The applicant did not demonstrate that the respondents, being financial institutions, would be unable to pay damages or that damages would be an insufficient remedy. Counsel for the respondents submitted, without contradiction, that they were sound financial institutions with no difficulty refunding the decretal sum. The court followed Integrated Wood Complex Ltd on the nugatory principle and found the limb unsatisfied.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both limbs - an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay; failure on either limb is fatal
  • 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 at the interlocutory stage
  • Where the respondent is an established financial institution able to repay the decretal amount, the appeal will not be rendered nugatory if stay is refused

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated January 24, 2022 seeking stay of execution pending appeal
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
H.C.C.C. No. E205 of 2021
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Astonfield Solesa Solar Kenya Limited v Beyond The Grid Solar Fund, Llc & 1 other", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Application No. E205 of 2021 (Notice of Motion dated January 24, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/139/eng@2023-02-17

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