Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedMiscellaneous Application E009 of 2022· [2023] KEELC 18014 (KLR)

Carzan Flowers Kenya Limited & another v Mago & 18 others

Environment and Land Court
19 June 2023
3,546 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed you can appeal its decisions to the Court of Appeal without permission, and granted a stay of execution backed by a bank guarantee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by L.A. Omollo J of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru determined the Applicants' Notice of Motion dated 13th December 2022 seeking stay of execution of the court's ruling of 17th November 2022, which had ordered the Applicants and the 19th Respondent to jointly and severally pay Kshs 3,163,890 being costs of Nairobi Tribunal Appeal No. 190 of 2016. The 1st to 18th Respondents raised a preliminary objection contending that the court lacked jurisdiction because the Applicants had not obtained leave to appeal under Rule 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order 2009, so no valid appeal existed to anchor stay. The Applicants countered that Section 16 of the Environment and Land Court Act confers an unfettered right of appeal which, being a statute, prevails over the 1965 subsidiary legislation. The court agreed, holding that by electing to appeal rather than file a reference, the Applicants enjoyed an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, obviating leave; the preliminary objection was dismissed. On the stay conditions under Order 42 Rule 6, the court found the application filed within a month of the ruling (no unreasonable delay), security offered by a bank guarantee of Kshs 1,580,995, and the purpose of stay being preservation of the subject matter. Concerns that the guarantee referenced the intended appeal rather than this suit were cured by directing a fresh guarantee. The application was allowed: stay granted pending the intended appeal, conditional on executing and renewing the guarantee, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction - whether leave under Rule 11(3) ARO is required before appealing

Holding

Preliminary objection dismissed; the Applicant has an automatic right of appeal under Section 16 of the ELC Act, obviating the need for leave.

Reasoning

The court noted the conflict between Rule 11(3) of the ARO (leave required) and Section 16 of the ELC Act (appeals as of right). Since the Applicant chose to approach the court by way of appeal rather than a reference, Section 16 of the ELC Act applies, giving an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court also noted its earlier recommendation to harmonise the ARO and EMCA procedures.

p. 6
02

Stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

Stay granted; the application was filed without unreasonable delay and security by bank guarantee was offered.

Reasoning

Applying Order 42 Rule 6, the court found the application filed within a month of the ruling (no unreasonable delay), security of Kshs 1,580,995 by bank guarantee offered, and the purpose of stay being preservation of the subject matter so the appeal is not rendered nugatory. Concerns about the wording of the guarantee were remedied by directing a fresh guarantee citing this suit.

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a party appeals a decision of the ELC under Section 16 of the ELC Act, it has an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and need not seek leave under Rule 11(3) of the Advocates Remuneration Order.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the Ruling delivered on 17/11/22 granted pending the hearing and determination of the Applicant's intended Appeal.
  2. 2.Applicant to within 14 days execute a fresh bank guarantee of Kshs. 1,580,995.00 citing this suit as the matter in respect of which the guarantee is given.
  3. 3.The guarantee shall be renewed every 3 months before its lapse during the pendency of the intended appeal.
  4. 4.In the event of failure by the Applicant to abide by (B) and (C) above, the orders of stay of execution shall stand vacated.
  5. 5.Costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) & (2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Advocates Act (Advocates Remuneration Order)Rule 11(3)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 16
  • Environmental Management and Co-ordination ActSection 130(1)
  • Interpretation and General Provisions ActSection 31(b)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 164(3)

Cases cited (15)

  • Charles Kamuren v Grace Jelagat Kipchoim & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR

    Resolving statutory conflict by hierarchy of laws

  • Tassam Logistics Ltd v David Macharia & Another
    [2018] eKLR

    Substantial loss for stay of execution

  • Arun C Sharma v Ashana Raikundalia t/a Rairundalia & Company Advocates & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR

    Security for due performance

  • Ena Investment Limited v Benard Ochau Mose & 2 others
    [2022] eKLR

    Security pending appeal

  • Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lilian S" v Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd.
    [1989]

    Jurisdiction is everything

  • Edith Wairimu Njoroge v Brooks Holdings Co. Limited and another
    [2018] eKLR

    Without leave there can be no valid Notice of Appeal

  • Peter Nyaga Murake v Joseph Mutunga
    Civil Appeal No. (Nairobi) 86 of 2015

    Validity of Notice of Appeal without leave

  • Kakuta Maimai Hamisi v Peris Pesi Tobiko and 2 others
    [2013] eKLR

    Right of appeal goes to jurisdiction

  • Machira v Magugu
    [2002] 2 EA 428

    ARO platform for taxation grievances and appeals

  • Twiga Motors Limited v Dalmas Otieno Onyango
    [2017] eKLR

    Approved Machira v Magugu

  • Onindo Onindo and Associates v Gatatha Farmers Co. Limited and another
    [2002] eKLR

    Principles for stay pending appeal

  • Showcase Property Ltd v Mugambi and Company Advocates
    [2020] eKLR

    Draft memorandum of appeal needed to assess arguability

  • OGM (Suing as the father of KGW) v FG and another
    [2020] eKLR

    Arguability of appeal

  • Mukuma v Abuoga
    [1988] KLR 645

    Substantial loss and preserving status quo

  • RWW v EKW
    [2019] eKLR

    Purpose of stay: preserve subject matter, appeal not rendered nugatory

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6(1) & (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Carzan Flowers Kenya Limited & another v Mago & 18 others", Case Analysis (2023). Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18014/eng@2023-06-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.