Tatu City Limited v Home Bridge Limited (Civil Application E511 of 2024) [2025] KECA 64 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to stop Home Bridge's construction at Tatu City because Tatu City failed to show its appeal would be ruined without a stay.
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 against the ELC ruling of 30th September 2024 is arguable
- 2.Whether the intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if the stay of proceedings and stay of execution sought are not granted
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The intended appeal was arguable, arising from the contestation on the propriety of the ELC's findings on the approvals required for Home Bridge's development.
Applying National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd v Aquinas Francis Wasike, the court held that grounds need not be argued at this stage; the applicant need only point out grounds believed to be arguable. The draft memorandum raised thirteen grounds contesting the ELC's treatment of the Ministry's approval and Tatu City's development control requirements, which the court found bona fide without expressing any view on their merits.
Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory
The appeal would not be rendered nugatory because the development was reversible, Tatu City adduced no evidence of irreversible damage, third parties would be affected by a stay, and Home Bridge's financial losses would not be compensated by damages.
Relying on Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter, the court weighed whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible or compensable in damages. Home Bridge had previously obtained approval for identical phase 1 construction, phase 2 mirrored phase 1, 562 completed apartments were sold and occupied, and loans totalling billions of shillings would be jeopardised. Tatu City offered no compensation and no proof of irreversible harm.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under Rule 5(2)(b) must demonstrate both that the appeal is arguable and that it will be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted; both limbs must be satisfied.
- An arguable appeal is not one that must succeed, but one raising a bona fide issue worthy of consideration; a single arguable point suffices.
- An appeal is rendered nugatory where the effect of what is sought to be stayed is irreversible, or if irreversible, where damages will not reasonably compensate the aggrieved party.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of Tatu City Limited's application dated 9th October 2024
- 2.Costs of the application to Home Bridge Limited
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Thika
- ELC Case No. E046 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings in ELC Case No. E046 of 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
The applicant did not demonstrate that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted
Order restraining Home Bridge Limited from constructing on and developing Unit Number L4-02 pending the intended appeal
The second limb of the Rule 5(2)(b) test was not satisfied; the development is reversible, third parties would be affected, and the financial losses to Home Bridge were not compensable by Tatu City
Costs
The application dated 9th October 2024 is dismissed with costs to Home Bridge.
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.
These principles, which are well established by various decisions of the Court, are that an applicant has to demonstrate that the appeal is arguable, and, that if the stay sought is not granted, the appeal or the intended appeal, as the case may be, will be rendered nugatory
Both limbs must be demonstrated before a party can obtain a relief under rule 5(2) (b)
In the circumstances, given that Tatu City has not demonstrated that its appeal will be rendered nugatory if the stay it seeks is not granted, we find that it has not met the threshold for grant of a stay of proceedings in ELC Case No. E046 of 2023, or of execution of the ruling of the ELC delivered therein on 30th September 2024. Its application dated 9th October 2024 is accordingly hereby dismissed with costs to Home Bridge.
We need not say more least we embarrass the bench that will eventually be tasked with hearing the intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the appeal number under which the application was lodged, only the application date; the caseNumber field is inferred from the application description
Ground 13 of the draft memorandum of appeal appears without text, and the judgment's numbering of grounds 13 and 18 is inconsistent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tatu City Limited v Home Bridge Limited (Civil Application E511 of 2024) [2025] KECA 64 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application No. E092 of 2024 (as per application dated 9th October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/64/eng@2025-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.