Eliud Maelo Wafula v The Minister of Agriculture & 2 others

T H E C H I E F E X E C U T I V E O F F I C E R K E N Y A S U G A R B O A R D . . .

page 2 of 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 T H D E F E N D A

page 3 of 6

N T S A U L B U S O L O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

page 4 of 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 T H D E F E N D A N T RULING On 12/7/2011 election for grower and miller representatives for Nzoia Sugar Belt Zone to the Kenya Sugar Board were held. The conduct of the election and the result did not go down well with the Plaintiff. He filed this suit before this court to nullify the election and to have the same repeated. Following a preliminary objection, this court found that under section 31 of the Sugar Act no.10 of 2001 the forum for the resolution of the election dispute was the Sugar Arbitration Tribunal. The suit was on 6/3/2012 struck out with costs for want of jurisdiction. The decision offended the Plaintiff. He has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. He now seeks stay of execution of the order of this court pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. He was represented by Mr. Kasamani. The Respondents opposed the application. They were represented by Mr. Ngumbi and Mr. Masinde. I have considered what counsel had to say on the application.

page 5 of 6

It is quite clear to this court that the order that is sought to be stayed was a negative one. There was nothing that was ordered to be done or not to be done that could be the subject of any stay. The application is to that extend misconceived (Kileleshwa Service Station Ltd v Kenya Shell Ltd [2008] KLR 55). It is dismissed with costs. Dated and delivered at Bungoma this 21st day of March, 2012. A. O. MUCHELULE JUDGE

page 6 of 6