Anne Wangeci Schofield T/A Schofield & Associates Applicant v Palm Valley Development Limited & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed a bid to protect a land caveat and struck out prayers asking it to decide final issues in a pending High Court suit.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether final orders in the pending High Court suit can be sought in an interlocutory application before the Court of Appeal
They cannot. Prayers asking the Court to strike out a defence, determine quantum, and award costs in the trial suit were struck out as beyond the Court's interlocutory jurisdiction.
The Court noted the prayers asked it to make orders in the suit pending before the trial court. While such relief could form part of the substantive appeal's determination, the statutory provisions governing interlocutory applications do not confer such powers. The prayers were prolix and confusing, and the Court severed the competent prayer (e) from the incompetent ones.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the injunction protecting the caveat on LR 12825/35 were refused
No. Even if the caveat were recalled or the company wound up, the claim is ultimately a money claim for legal fees, no impecunity was alleged, and the applicant holds the respondents' title documents worth more than her fees.
Applying the earlier application's reasoning, the Court found nothing had changed. The respondents are known and in the business of developing and selling property; the legal fees can be recovered at any time; there were no averments of inability to pay; and the applicant retains vital documents including the title, which itself is worth more than the fees claimed. The nugatory limb therefore failed and prayer (e) was dismissed.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The appeal is arguable, as this Court had already found in the earlier kindred application, including on whether the trial court erred in failing to consider that the 2nd respondent was a limited liability company requiring a board resolution.
The Court treated the prior determination on arguability as its own answer, since this was the second application of a kindred nature in the same appeal. An arguable point need not succeed; it need only be deserving of consideration. The Court declined to say more to avoid embarrassing the bench that will hear the main appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Final orders in the underlying suit, such as striking out a defence, determining quantum, or awarding costs in the trial court, cannot be granted in an interlocutory application before the Court of Appeal.
- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both twin principles: the appeal must be arguable, and the appeal must not be rendered nugatory if the orders sought are refused; failure on the nugatory limb is fatal.
- Whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible or, if not reversible, whether damages will reasonably compensate the aggrieved party; where a money decree is ultimately payable and no impecunity is shown, the nugatory limb fails.
- A rule 5(2)(b) court exercises original and discretionary jurisdiction and does not sit in appeal over the trial judge's discretion, nor may it make definitive findings of fact or law that would embarrass the hearing of the main appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers (c) and (d) of the notice of motion dated 15th September 2025 are hereby marked as withdrawn
- 2.Prayers (a) and (f) of the said motion are marked as spent
- 3.Prayers (b) and (g) of the said motion are hereby struck out
- 4.Prayer (e) is hereby dismissed
- 5.Costs of the application shall be to the respondents
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Civil Suit No. 352 of 2016 (Ruling by Okwany, J.)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (injunctive relief pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Anne Wangeci Schofield T/A Schofield & Associates Applicant v Palm Valley Development Limited & 1 other", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E032 of 2022 (as renewed by Notice of Motion dated 15th September 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/852/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.