The Registered Trustees of Ruiru Sports Club v Njeru Nyaga & Company Advocates Llp
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal paused the Shs 41 million fees case against Ruiru Sports Club until its appeal is heard, but refused to punish the advocate for contempt.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal under rule 5(2)(b)
The question whether the ELC had jurisdiction to enter judgment for Kshs 41,289,401.80 on the basis of a fee agreement within an Advocate/Client Bill of Costs without taxation or a substantive suit is an arguable issue sufficient to satisfy the first limb of rule 5(2)(b).
The Court looked at the memorandum of appeal and identified the jurisdictional challenge to the ELC's judgment as a single arguable issue. Citing the settled principle that one arguable ground suffices, it found the issue not frivolous, satisfying the first limb of the rule 5(2)(b) test without needing to assess the merits in depth.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay of proceedings
Stay of proceedings in the ELC was merited because the decretal amount was already secured in a joint escrow account controlled by counsel for both parties, and continued garnishee proceedings against other accounts could dissipate funds the applicant could not recover if the appeal succeeded.
The Court noted the consent order of 13 December 2023, the opening of the joint escrow account, and the deposit of the decretal sum by the NLC albeit eight months late and without demur from the respondent. Since the respondent remained a signatory to the escrow account while attaching other funds, the applicant's apprehension of irrecoverability was well founded and fairness required a stay.
Whether the respondent should be cited for contempt of the consent order of 13th December 2023
The prayer for contempt was refused because the applicant had not laid a sufficient basis; the parties interpreted the consent order differently and no appropriate application was before the Court to determine its terms and whether there was breach.
The Court observed that both parties had acted in accordance with the consent order's terms yet each interpreted it to suit their interests. Without a proper application to construe the consent order and determine breach, contempt could not be founded on it; the refusal was procedural rather than a finding of no contempt.
Legal principles established
#- A stay of proceedings is a grave interruption of a party's right to litigate and should only be granted where, beyond all reasonable doubt, the proceedings ought not to continue.
- In granting a stay of proceedings the court must balance the right of a party to have the suit heard timeously against the opponent's need to prosecute its appeal, guided primarily by fairness to both parties.
- Whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible or, if not, whether damages would reasonably compensate the aggrieved party.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of proceedings in Milimani ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E083 of 2022 pending the hearing and determination of the applicant's appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the intended appeal
- 3.Appeal to be listed for hearing on a priority basis
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- ELC Miscellaneous Application No. E083 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "The Registered Trustees of Ruiru Sports Club v Njeru Nyaga & Company Advocates Llp", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal No. E463 of 2023 (Application dated 25th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1284/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.