[2010] KECA 425 (KLR)
The Court found that the applicant had satisfied both limbs required for the grant of a stay under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. First, the applicant demonstrated that it had an arguable appeal, particularly regarding the legal and practical impossibility of reversing share entries and the potential...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KECA 425 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: CFC Financial Services Limited; Respondent: Juja Road Fancy Store Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 328 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed in part; stay granted as per prayers 1 and 2; costs in the appeal.
- Judges
- JW Nyamu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeals Process, Share Transactions, Capital Markets Regulation
- 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
CFC Financial Services Limited
Applicant
Juja Road Fancy Store Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal warranting a stay of execution.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether compliance with the High Court order would compel the applicant to breach statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant had satisfied both limbs required for the grant of a stay under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules. First, the applicant demonstrated that it had an arguable appeal, particularly regarding the legal and practical impossibility of reversing share entries and the potential breach of statutory provisions. Second, the Court was persuaded that, absent a stay, the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory, as the respondent had already sought to have the applicant's officers committed to civil jail for non-compliance with the High Court order. The risk of imprisonment and the irreversible consequences of executing the order justified the grant of a...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed in part; stay granted as per prayers 1 and 2; costs in the appeal.
Orders
- There shall be an order of stay in the terms contained in prayers 1 and 2 of the motion.
- Orders sought in prayers 3 and 4 are rejected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 328 OF 2009
CFC FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED ……………………. APPLICANT
AND
JUJA ROAD FANCY STORE LIMITED ………………….RESPONDENT
(Being an application for Stay of Execution and or any further
Proceedings in an intended appeal from the Ruling and Order of the High
Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Court (Khaminwa, J)
dated 6th February, 2009
In
H.C. C.C. No. 331 of 2008)
*******************
RULING OF THE COURT:
The motion before the Court is brought underRule 5 (2) (b) of the Court’s Rules and it is basically to stay the execution of an order or orders made by the superior court (Khaminwa, J) on 6th February, 2009. The motion was only filed in this Court on 16th November, 2009 but that long delay appears to have been occasioned by the fact that the applicant, CFC Financial Services Ltd. had filed an application in the superior court which had sought an order of stay of execution and an order for leave to appeal. Khaminwa, J ruled on that application on 23rd October, 2009. She granted to the applicant leave to appeal but declined to order a stay of her orders of 6th February, 2009. This motion was then filed seeking an order of stay.
The applicant says that in order to comply with the learned Judge’s order, it may be compelled to breach certain provisions of the Capital Markets Authority Act; the applicant is required to nullify the allocation of certain shares which are currently registered in the names of the respondent, Juja Road Fancy Store Ltd. The applicant had purported to buy those shares on behalf of the respondent. The respondent's case has always been that it did not instruct the applicant to purchase those shares on its behalf. The position, however, is that as at present the shares are registered in the name of the respondent and the applicant says it would not be legally possible for it to compel ICDC Investments Company Ltd. to, as it were, reverse the entry in its register of shares and transfer the shares registered in the name of the respondent to another party. Even if the applicant had acted without the authority of the respondent when the shares were being bought, we think the points raised by the applicant, i.e. transferring the shares to someone else and thus reversing various entries, is an arguable one. We note that the respondent did not, for example, ask for orders that the money used to purchase the shares purportedly on his behalf be refunded to his bank account. The order given by the Judge on 6th February, 2009 compels the applicant, either by itself, its agents, servants or whomsoever:-
“--- to reverse and cancel the entry reflecting the purchase of 10,000/-
shares of ICDC Investments Company limited -------.”
As we have said the applicant has satisfied the Court that it has an arguable appeal. The Court has repeatedly pointed out that an arguable appeal does not in any way connote an appeal that will or must succeed. On whether the applicant’s intended appeal will be rendered nugatory if we do not grant an order of stay and the appeal were to succeed, we note from the record that the respondent has in fact made an application in the superior court for certain officers of the applicant to be committed to civil jail for six months for their failure to comply with the Judge’s order of 6th February, 2009. If those officers were to be committed to jail and the applicant’s appeal were to eventually succeed that success would have been rendered nugatory. The applicant has thus satisfied both requirements for an application under Rule 5 (2) (b) of the Court’s Rules.
Accordingly we allow the applicant’s notice of motion dated 13th November, 2009 and lodged in the Court on 16th November, 2009 with the result that there shall be an order of stay in the terms contained in prayers 1 and 2 of the motion. We see no reason for granting the orders sought in prayers 3 and 4, and we reject those prayers. The costs of the motion shall be in the appeal. Those shall be the orders of the Court.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of February, 2010.
R.S.C. OMOLO
……………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
D.K.S. AGANYANYA
………………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J.G. NYAMU
………………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR.