Devolution Empowerment Party & another v Chepngeny & 5 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal paused a High Court ruling against the Devolution Empowerment Party, keeping contested party leadership changes on hold until the full appeal is heard.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether, if the application is not granted, the success of the appeal would be rendered nugatory
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The Court found one bona fide arguable ground: whether the learned Judge usurped the jurisdiction of the PPDT to hear and determine disputes arising from a political party.
The Court applied the settled test that an arguable appeal need not succeed but must not be frivolous and warrants full argument. Without making definitive findings on the merits, it held that the jurisdictional question - whether the High Court judge encroached on the PPDT's statutory preserve - was a bona fide issue fit for resolution on appeal.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused
The second limb was satisfied because the contested officials are yet to be registered owing to the PPDT stay, so the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the High Court judgment were executed.
The Court noted that nugatory factors depend on the circumstances of each case and the conflicting claims of both sides. Since the Registrar had been restrained by the PPDT from implementing the resolutions of the Special National Delegates Convention, the contested officials remained unregistered, and execution of the High Court judgment would render the appeal nugatory.
Legal principles established
#- A Rule 5(2)(b) applicant must demonstrate both that the appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused; one limb alone is insufficient.
- On a Rule 5(2)(b) application the Court exercises an original, independent discretion, not an appellate one.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 30th October 2024 by Sergon, J. in Kericho High Court Constitutional Petition No. E009 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Court of Appeal
- 2.Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kericho
- Constitutional Petition No. E009 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 5(2)(b), 44(1) & (2) and 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
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.
Therefore, we find that the applicants have satisfied the second prerequisite and allow the application dated 6th November 2024 and order a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 30th October 2024 by Sergon, J.
These two limbs must both be demonstrated and it would not be enough that only one is demonstrated.
The costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering restarts; two paragraphs are numbered '1'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Devolution Empowerment Party & another v Chepngeny & 5 others", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Application E101 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1856/eng@2024-12-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.