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 AppealOtherNot stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2024, Mombasa)· [2024] KECA 1763 (KLR)

Lucy Akoth Ngaji v James Lukiri & 4 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
6 December 2024
457 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that mixed applications must go to a full bench, so Lucy Akoth Ngaji's stay and extension-of-time requests will be heard by three judges.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Mombasa delivered by Lesiit, JA on 6th December 2024, in an application by Lucy Akoth Ngaji dated 17th April 2024. The applicant sought: an interim stay of execution of a judgment of Matheka, J dated 26th October 2022 in Mombasa H.C. Petition No. 006 of 2022 and its consequential orders; a stay of that judgment pending the hearing of an appeal; and leave to appeal out of time against the judge's ruling on review dated 24th October 2023. The court observed that the notice of motion did not invoke any rule under which it was brought. It characterised the prayers as omnibus: while some could be determined by a single judge, the order of stay of execution can only be heard by a full bench. Relying on the Court of Appeal's own decision in Geothermal Development Company vs. Lantech Africa Limited, which endorsed referring the whole of an omnibus application to a full bench or striking it out, the judge held it prudent to refer the entire application. The interim stay prayer was noted as moot. The court made no substantive orders on the prayers; instead it directed that the notice of motion be listed for hearing by a full bench on a priority basis. No costs order was made. The decision below was not disturbed; the substantive applications remain pending before the full bench.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a single judge of the Court of Appeal may determine an omnibus application containing prayers reserved for a full bench

Holding

No. Where an application combines prayers that a single judge can grant with prayers reserved for a full bench (such as stay of execution), the prudent course is to refer the entire application to a full bench.

Reasoning

The court observed that the application was defective in not invoking any rule, and that its prayers were omnibus. Relying on Geothermal Development Company vs. Lantech Africa Limited, where the Court endorsed referring or striking out the whole of an omnibus application, the single judge held that since stay of execution can only be heard by a full bench, the entire notice of motion should go to a full bench on a priority basis rather than being partially dealt with.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An omnibus application before the Court of Appeal seeking diverse orders, some of which only a full bench can determine, should be referred to a full bench rather than partially determined by a single judge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 17th April 2024 be listed for hearing by a full bench of the Court on a priority basis
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
Mombasa H.C. Petition No. 006 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent/appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over applications incidental to an intended appeal; the specific rule under which the application was brought was not invoked (the Court noted it 'has not invoked the rule(s) under which it has been brought')

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lucy Akoth Ngaji v James Lukiri & 4 others", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2024, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1763/eng@2024-12-06

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