[2020] KECA 122 (KLR)
The Court found that while the applicant's draft memorandum of appeal contained arguable points, thus satisfying the first principle for grant of stay, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted. The threatened harm was payment of a fine for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KECA 122 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Rachael Mutheu Ndambuki
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 36 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings and Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Stay of Execution, Fine Enforcement
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General
Applicant
Rachael Mutheu Ndambuki
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings and Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the twin principles for grant of stay under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 2 Whether payment of the fine would render the intended appeal nugatory if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that while the applicant's draft memorandum of appeal contained arguable points, thus satisfying the first principle for grant of stay, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted. The threatened harm was payment of a fine for contempt of court, and there was no evidence that the fine would not be recoverable if the appeal succeeded. Therefore, the applicant did not satisfy the second principle required for the grant of stay under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. As a result, the application for stay was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The applicant’s application dated 2nd June 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CORAM: OUKO (P), NAMBUYE & KIAGE JJ.A.)
MOMBASA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2020
BETWEEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................APPLICANT/INTENDED APPELLANT
AND
RACHAEL MUTHEU NDAMBUKI.............................................. RESPONDENT
(Being an application for stay of proceedings and execution pending appeal of the ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Hon. J. Rika, J.) dated 25thOctober 2019
in
Mombasa ELRC Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2019)
***************************
RULING OF THE COURT
1. HAVINGperused the Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2020, substantively brought under Rule 5(2)(b) of the rules of this Court, seeking an order that this Court be pleased to grant an order of stay of the execution and proceedings of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa in Constitutional Petition No. 2 of 2019 pending the filing, hearing and determination of the intended appeal; an order that the hearing on 23rd September 2020, all other proceedings and consequential orders issued be stayed pending the filing, hearing and determination of the intended appeal; an order that this Court be pleased to stay the payment andexecution of the fine of kshs. 250,000 and other consequential orders related to the fine pending the filing, hearing and determination of the intended appeal; and lastly, an order that costs of the application be in the cause; and
2. UPONappraising the grounds in the body of the application and the affidavit ofJohn W. Njogusworn on 2nd June 2020 in support of the application together with annextures thereto; and
3. UPONappraising the replying affidavit ofRachel Mutheu Ndambuki, the respondent, erroneously titled“further affidavit”sworn on 19th June 2020 together with annextures thereto; and
4. UPONappraising the applicant’s written submissions dated 7th October 2020 together with legal authorities relied upon by the applicant in support of the application; and
5. UPONappraising the respondent’s written submissions dated 9th October 2020 together with legal authorities relied upon by the respondent in opposition to the application; and
6. HAVINGconsidered the principles that guide this Court in determining applications under rule 5(2)(b), of this Court’s rules as summarized inStanley Kang’ethe vs. Tony Keter & Others [2013]eKLR, we are satisfied the applicant’s draft memorandum of appeal annexed to the application contains arguable points and has therefore satisfied the first of the twin principles required to be met for grant of relief under the above rule; and
7. UPONapplying the same test to the rival pleadings and written submissions with regard to satisfaction of the second of the twin principles for granting of relief under the said rule, namely, that if the relief sought is not granted, the intended appeal if successful will be rendered nugatory, we find this has not been established for the reason that what is threatened is payment of a fine imposed for the alleged contempt of court orders. There is nothing in the applicant’s supporting evidence to suggest that once the fine is paid the same will not be recoverable should the intended appeal ultimately succeed; and
8. HAVINGreached that conclusion, we make an order as follows:
1. The applicant’s application dated 2ndJune 2020 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 4thday of December, 2020.
W. OUKO (P)
.....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
R. N. NAMBUYE
.......................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.O KIAGE
....................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a truecopy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR