[2023] KECA 414 (KLR)

[2023] KECA 414 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a likelihood of execution of the decree, which could render the intended appeal nugatory by potentially installing the 5th respondent as CEO and undermining the applicant's position. In the absence of opposition from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th respondents, and with the 1st and 2nd respondents supporting the application, the court was persuaded that the risk was real and immediate. The court therefore exercised its discretion to rescind its earlier decision and certified the application as urgent, allowing it to be heard on a priority basis.

Citation
[2023] KECA 414 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: The Board, Export Processing Zones Authority; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary, Industrialization, Trade & Enterprise Development; Respondent: Hon Attorney General; Respondent: Mr Henry Obino; Respondent: Okiya Omtata Okoiti; Respondent: Mr Ezekiel Owuor Otieno
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
31 March 2023
Case Number
Civil Application 068 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Certification of Urgency Under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules
Outcome
Application for certification of urgency allowed.
Judges
A Ali-Aroni
Legal Topics
Appointment of Ceo, Board Vs Cabinet Secretary Powers, Stay of Execution, Urgency Certification
Source Language
English
Employment and Labour Appointment of Ceo Board Vs Cabinet Secretary Powers Stay of Execution Urgency Certification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Board, Export Processing Zones Authority

Applicant

Cabinet Secretary, Industrialization, Trade & Enterprise Development

Respondent

Hon Attorney General

Respondent

Mr Henry Obino

Respondent

Okiya Omtata Okoiti

Respondent

Mr Ezekiel Owuor Otieno

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Certification of Urgency Under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution should be certified as urgent and prioritized for hearing.
  2. 2 Whether failure to certify the application as urgent would render the intended appeal nugatory.
  3. 3 Whether the appointment of the 5th respondent as CEO was lawful in light of alleged criminal conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated a likelihood of execution of the decree, which could render the intended appeal nugatory by potentially installing the 5th respondent as CEO and undermining the applicant's position. In the absence of opposition from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th respondents, and with the 1st and 2nd respondents supporting the application, the court was persuaded that the risk was real and immediate. The court therefore exercised its discretion to rescind its earlier decision and certified the application as urgent, allowing it to be heard on a priority basis.

Court Disposition

Application for certification of urgency allowed.

Orders

  • The application is certified as urgent and will be heard on a priority basis.