[1984] KECA 112 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal determined that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent did not go to the jurisdiction of the court but rather to the correctness of the High Court's decision. The court held that, as framed, Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules confers jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to determine...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1984] KECA 112 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kenya Casements Limited; Respondent: Ideal Casements Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 16 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection dismissed; application for stay to proceed to substantive determination.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Arbitration Proceedings, Jurisdiction of Court
- 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
Kenya Casements Limited
Applicant
Ideal Casements Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Intended Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution under Rule 5 of the Court's Rules in the circumstances of this case.
- 2 Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making determinations not properly before it on an originating summons.
- 3 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending the intended appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal determined that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent did not go to the jurisdiction of the court but rather to the correctness of the High Court's decision. The court held that, as framed, Rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules confers jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to determine applications for stay of execution pending appeal. The court further held that even if the High Court may have erred in addressing issues not properly before it, its order remains valid and enforceable until set aside. Therefore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the preliminary objection and proceeded to consider the substantive application for stay of execution.
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection dismissed; application for stay to proceed to substantive determination.
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed.
- The application for stay of execution will be determined on its merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 16 OF 1984
(In the matter of an intended appeal)
BETWEEN
KENYA CASEMENTS LIMITED…………………………………………........................APPLICANT
AND
IDEAL CASEMENTS LIMITED………………………………………..........................RESPONDENT
(Appliation for stay of execution pending an intended appeal from a judgment of the
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Porter, J) dated 23rd November, 1983
in
High Court Civil Case No 2719 of 1983 (O.S
RULING
During the course of this application by the Respondent to the Originating Summons, which came before the High Court in July and November last year, to stay the execution of the Ruling by Porter J of 23rd November, 1983, Mr. Nagpal, for the Respondent to this application, has taken preliminary objection which, he says, goes to the jurisdiction of this court. He says we cannot, in the circumstances of this case, make any order of a stay, which could, in any event, only be under Rule 5 of this Court’s Rules, as recently amended.
Mr Nagpal has argued that there was no issue before Porter J as to whether the arbitration was competent under Clause 16 of the original Agreement between the parties, or as to whether it should proceed. The only issues before the judge were the application for the injunction, which Nyarangi J (as he then was) had granted ex parte on the 29th July, 1983, and which the Respondent sought to continue when the matter came before porter J, inter partes, and the replacement of the late Mr Humphrey Slade by Mr R E G Rusell, to whom, there is, personally, stated to be no objection. The Judge, said Mr Nagpal, had no need to say, and should not have said, as he did on the penultimate page of his Ruling:-
“In these circumstances it seems to me that the more one considers the facts of this case the more obvious it becomes that it is a matter which should be referred under the agreement to an arbitrator and in these circumstances Mr Patel’s argument that I cannot grant the application for appointment of a new arbitrator in view of the fact that there should be no arbitration in the first place is wrong, and the quickest step to settlement of the dispute is for the arbitrator to be appointed and the arbitration to be entered on without any further delay.”
Since the arbitration was already in being and unless stopped, will be heard on the 18th, 19th and 24th April of this year, Mr Nagpal submitted that the arbitration did not depend in any way on the proceedings before the High Court.. The proper course for the applicant to have taken was to seek an injunction or to have brought a declaratory suit if it contended that the arbitration was incompetent, as indicated in the passage from the 19th Edition ofRUSSELL ON ARBITRATIONto which he referred us.
There have been two recent cases in which this court has said that issues not before the High Court on an Originating Summons should not be decided n proceedings before it, namely Kenya Commercial Bank v James Osebe, Civil Appeal 60 of 1982, where the issue of damages could not in any event, have been determined on an Originating Summons, and James Njoro Kibutiri v Eliud Njau Kibutiri,Civil Appeal 30 of 1982 where LAW JA said that the High court had no jurisdiction to partition nonpartnership land. That is undoubtedly correct, but until this court had decided that the High Court should not have determined the issue (if, indeed, in this case it should not) the High Court order remains in effect and is valid and enforceable as an order which has been duly issued and sealed.
Attractive, therefore, as Mr Nagpal’s argument is, we agree with Mr Nowrojee, who represents the Applicant, that the point he has taken does not go to the jurisdiction of this court, but only to the rectitude or otherwise of part of the decision of the High Court. In those circumstances this court must have juridcition underrule 5, as it is framed, to decide the issue of the whether or not a stay of PORTER J’s Ruling should be granted.
We accordingly dismiss the preliminary objection and proceed to determine the question raised by the Notice of Motion filed on 26th March, 1984.
Dated at Nairobi this 17th day of April, 1984.
A A KNELLER
JUDGE
A R W HANCOX
JUDGE OF APPEAL
J O NYARANGI
AG JUDGE OF APPEAL