Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology v Icea Lion Life Assurance Company Limited & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to stop JKUAT from paying ICEA Life Kshs. 296 million because the appeal lacked merit and ICEA can easily refund the money if it later wins.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal was arguable
The appeal was inarguable because the deed of indemnity was undisputed: KRA demanded the VAT, ICEA paid it, and ICEA's refund demand rested on an indemnity the applicant did not dispute
The court held that on the undisputed facts - the unequivocal deed of indemnity, the KRA demand, ICEA's payment of Ksh. 296,000,000 as VAT under the Settlement Agreement, and the refund demand on the unchallenged Deed of Indemnity - no reasonable question of law was raised. It declined to make definitive findings to avoid embarrassing the bench seized of the substantive appeal.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was refused
The second limb failed: the decree is a money decree and there was no evidence of the 1st respondent's financial impecuniosity or inability to refund
The court weighed the balance of convenience on the conflicting claims, bearing in mind each case is considered on its merits. The applicant produced no evidence of the 1st respondent's imminent financial hardship or inability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The 1st respondent's audited accounts showed a turnover of Kshs. 3.4 billion and assets of Kshs. 148 billion. The limb therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed on rule 5(2)(b), an applicant must show the appeal or intended appeal is arguable (not frivolous) and that, if successful, it will be rendered nugatory absent a stay
- An arguable appeal need not be one that must succeed; it is one that is not frivolous and ought to be argued fully, and the Court makes no final findings on fact or law at the stay stage
- For a money decree, the nugatory test requires demonstration of the respondent's financial impecuniosity or inability to refund; absent such proof, the second limb fails
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15th November 2024 brought under rule 5(2)(b) is dismissed
- 2.Costs awarded to the 1st respondent only
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- HCCom. Suit No. E881 of 2021 (ICEA Life Assurance Company Limited v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022; Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Articles 50(1) and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution invoked in the motion
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology v Icea Lion Life Assurance Company Limited & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Court of Appeal Application dated 15th November 2024 arising from HCCom. Suit No. E881 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1462/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.