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 AppealAllowedApplication dated 27th June 2023· [2024] KECA 18 (KLR)

Kenya Revenue Authority v Embrio Enterprises Limited (Civil Application E292 of 2023) [2024] KECA 18 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
25 January 2024
740 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal stopped execution of a Kshs. 12.87 million judgment because the judgment creditor couldn't prove it could refund the money if the appeal succeeds.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge-application ruling under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, decided by a bench of three Judges of Appeal at Nairobi. The applicant sought stay of execution of a High Court judgment delivered on 24th May 2023 by A.N. Ongeri, J., which awarded the respondent Kshs. 12,870,033.00 with interest from 21st May 2013 for a consignment of sugar allegedly lost while in the applicant's custody. Counsel for the applicant argued the intended appeal was arguable on the basis that the judge disregarded evidence that the consignment was lost outside the applicant's custody, and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory because the respondent has no known presence or assets in Kenya and could not refund the decretal sum. The respondent countered that it had waited over nine years for judgment, that the appeal was not arguable, and that as a going concern it could refund any decretal amount. Applying the Stanley Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter standard, the court found the appeal arguable. On the nugatory limb, applying Attorney General v James Hoseah Gitau Mwara, it held that the burden shifted to the respondent to demonstrate ability to refund by listing assets and bank accounts; the respondent offered nothing beyond asserting it was a going concern. The application was allowed and stay of execution granted pending the intended appeal, with costs of the application to abide the appeal's outcome.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

The intended appeal is arguable, not frivolous, given the argument that the judge disregarded evidence that the consignment was lost outside the applicant's custody.

Reasoning

Applying the Stanley Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter standard, the court found a single arguable point sufficient. Counsel argued the judge disregarded evidence that the consignment or part of it was lost while outside the applicant's custody, and the court was satisfied the intended appeal was not frivolous.

p. 2
02

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

Holding

The nugatory principle was satisfied because the respondent produced no material showing ability to refund the decretal amount beyond asserting it is a going concern.

Reasoning

Relying on Attorney General v James Hoseah Gitau Mwara, the court held that where inability to refund is alleged, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove ability to refund by listing assets and bank accounts. The respondent offered only the bare statement that it is a going concern, with no supporting material, and its director is based in the United States with no evidence of presence in Kenya.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an applicant alleges the respondent's inability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove ability to refund by showing assets or bank accounts.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court delivered on May 24, 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's intended appeal, in terms of prayer 3 of the application dated June 27, 2023
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (2)

  • Stanley Kinyanjui vs. Tony Ketter & 5 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Attorney General vs James Hoseah Gitau Mwara
    [2014] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court at Nairobi
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 Revenue Authority v Embrio Enterprises Limited (Civil Application E292 of 2023) [2024] KECA 18 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 27th June 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/18/eng@2024-01-25

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