Mavoko Muundani Residents Association & 5 others v East Africa Portland Cement PLC & 5 others (Civil Application E146 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1459 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to stop evictions pending an appeal because the applicants never showed a real, specific error by the lower court judge.
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 successful, the appeal would be rendered nugatory unless an injunction pending appeal is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants demonstrated an arguable intended appeal
The application failed because the applicants asserted arguability only in general terms without tying any ground to the impugned decision.
The court restated the twin requirements under rule 5(2)(b): an arguable appeal and the nugatory- dimension, both of which must be satisfied. An arguable appeal need not succeed but must be bona fide. The applicants' affidavit merely stated the appeal was arguable; the motion's grounds described the underlying dispute but did not fault the Judge's exercise of discretion. Since the decision below was discretionary, the applicants had to show error within the recognised grounds for interfering with discretion, which they did not.
Whether the nugatory- limb needed consideration
Having failed on arguability, the court did not interrogate the second condition.
Because both conditions under rule 5(2)(b) must be satisfied, failure on the first disposes of the application without considering whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both the arguability and the nugatory- limbs; a single bona fide arguable ground suffices, and the ground must be referenced to the decision appealed against, not merely asserted.
- An appellate court interferes with a discretionary decision only on the established grounds of misdirection in law, misapprehension of facts, consideration of irrelevant or disregard of relevant matters, or a plainly wrong decision.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 12th March 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining eviction, demolition of homes and interference with occupation pending the intended appeal
No arguable ground of appeal was identified that faults the learned Judge's exercise of discretion; the affidavit assertion of arguability was general and not referenced to the decision
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents
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.
In the premises, the application fails and is dismissed with costs to the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents.
It should not just be plucked from the air. We deprecate the practice of parties merely mentioning that they have an arguable appeal and then referring the court to those grounds without more.
Whereas the applicant need not satisfy the existence of a multiplicity of arguable grounds, both conditions must be satisfied.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mavoko Muundani Residents Association & 5 others v East Africa Portland Cement PLC & 5 others (Civil Application E146 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1459 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (notice of motion dated 12th March 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1459/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.