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 21st February 2022· [2024] KECA 116 (KLR)

Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority (previously known as Energy Regulatory Commission) v Gitson Energy Limited & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E043 of 2022) [2024] KECA 116 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
9 February 2024
1,016 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal paused a court order forcing the energy regulator to issue a 300MW wind power licence until the full appeal is heard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal (Kairu, Tuiyott and Lesiit, JJ.A) on the applicant Authority's notice of motion dated 21st February 2022 under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking stay of execution of the High Court judgment of 11th November 2021 (Nyamweya, J., delivered by A. Ndungu, J.). The High Court had granted Gitson Energy Ltd an order of mandamus compelling the Ministry of Energy and the Authority to include the 1st respondent's 300MW Wind Energy Project in its list of approved projects and to issue the appropriate permit and licence in line with the Ministry's approval of 16th February 2010. An earlier ruling on the same application was reviewed and set aside on 30th March 2023, allowing this re-hearing. Applying the settled Rule 5(2)(b) standard, the Court found the intended appeal arguable on the questions whether conditions precedent to licensing - a feasibility study and availability of land - had been met, and whether the Energy Tribunal was the proper first forum. On the nugatory limb, the Court accepted that licences and approvals, once granted, cannot be undone if the appeal succeeds, and noted the public importance of regulatory safeguards for safety and the environment. The Court allowed the application, staying execution of the High Court judgment pending the appeal, with costs in the appeal. The underlying appeal remains to be heard; the decision below was not disturbed on its merits at this stage.

Key legal issues

#
01

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The intended appeal is not frivolous because it raises the question whether the High Court erred in granting mandamus when conditions precedent for the licence, including a feasibility study and availability of land, had not been fulfilled.

Reasoning

The Court applied the settled Rule 5(2)(b) test: one arguable point suffices, and an arguable appeal is not one that must necessarily succeed. The applicant contended the 1st respondent had not fulfilled conditions precedent, including submission of a feasibility study and availability of land in Marsabit, and that the first port of call should have been the Energy Tribunal. On those contentions the Court was satisfied the appeal was arguable.

p. 3
02

Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused

Holding

Once the licence and permits are issued and approvals granted, those acts cannot be undone if the appeal later succeeds, so the appeal would be rendered nugatory; the public importance of the regulatory conditions reinforced the grant of stay.

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the effect of the impugned judgment is to compel the Authority to issue licences and permits without sufficient regulatory checks, including a feasibility study ensuring grid interconnection without disruption. Since approvals and licences, once granted, cannot be reversed, execution before appeal would destroy the subject matter of the appeal; public interest in the regulatory framework supporting safety and the environment weighed in favour of a stay.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate that the intended appeal is not frivolous and that, if the stay is declined and the appeal succeeds, the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
  • An arguable appeal need not be one that must necessarily succeed.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court dated 11th November 2021 and delivered on 15th November 2021 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal (prayer 3 of the application dated 21st February 2022)
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal RulesRule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui vs Tony Ketter & 5 others
    [2013] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority (previously known as Energy Regulatory Commission) v Gitson Energy Limited & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E043 of 2022) [2024] KECA 116 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Application dated 21st February 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/116/eng@2024-02-09

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