[2020] KECA 122 (KLR)

[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
Employment and Labour Contempt of Court Stay of Execution Fine Enforcement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Rachael Mutheu Ndambuki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings and Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 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. 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.