[2005] KECA 196 (KLR)
The Court found that while the intended appeal was arguable, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted. The Court emphasized that the applicant could raise all jurisdictional issues during the hearing of the contempt application before the High Court....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KECA 196 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Narok County Council; Respondent: Kalysioi Farmer Co-operative Society; Respondent: Samwel Kipkemoi Langat; Respondent: Jonathan Kipkoriri Bore; Respondent: Nicholas K. Kimeto; Respondent: Francis Kimutai Maritim; Respondent: Stanley Kibet Kirinyet; Respondent: Joseph Kipkoske Kilele
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 166 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- AR Lorot
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Applications, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Contempt 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
Narok County Council
Applicant
Kalysioi Farmer Co-operative Society
Respondent
Samwel Kipkemoi Langat
Respondent
Jonathan Kipkoriri Bore
Respondent
Nicholas K. Kimeto
Respondent
Francis Kimutai Maritim
Respondent
Stanley Kibet Kirinyet
Respondent
Joseph Kipkoske Kilele
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of proceedings under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether it would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether issues of jurisdiction can be raised and determined during the hearing of the contempt application.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that while the intended appeal was arguable, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted. The Court emphasized that the applicant could raise all jurisdictional issues during the hearing of the contempt application before the High Court. Therefore, the threshold for granting a stay of proceedings under Rule 5(2)(b) was not met, and the application was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings is dismissed with costs.
- Reasons for the decision to be given at a later date.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISUMU
(CORAM: OMOLO, O’KUBASU & DEVERELL, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NAI 166 OF 2005 (UR 100-05)
BETWEEN
NAROK COUNTY COUNCIL ………………………………………. APPLICANT
AND
KALYSOI FARMER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
SAMWEL KIPKEMOI LANGAT
JONATHAN KIPKORIRI BORE
NICHOLAS K. KIMETO
FRANCIS KIMUTAI MARITIM
STANLEY KIBET KIRINYET
JOSEPH KIPKOSKE KILELE ………………………………….. RESPONDENTS
(An application for stay of the Orders of the High Court of Kenya at
Nairobi (Ojwang J) dated 14th June, 2005
in
H.C.C.C. NO. 664 OF 2005)
**********************
RULING OF THE COURT
We have before us an application under Rule 5 (2) (b) of this Court’s Rules in which we are asked to order that all further proceedings in Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 664 of 2004 and all the orders made therein on 14th June, 2005 be stayed pending determination of the intended appeal.
This application was certified urgent on 17th June, 2005 and it has come up for hearing today at mid-day. The proceedings to be stayed are to be placed before Ojwang J at 3. 00 p.m. today.
We have heard submissions from the learned counsel appearing for the parties herein. It is our view that the intended appeal is arguable but we do not think the same would be rendered nugatory if this application was refused. The parties have the opportunity to raise all the issues relating to jurisdiction during the hearing of contempt application. We would point out that it would be quite appropriate for the learned Judge to hear the arguments on jurisdiction while dealing with contempt application.
In view of the foregoing, we dismiss this application with costs and reserve our reasons to be given at a later date.
Dated and delivered at Kisumu this 22nd day of June, 2005.
R. S. C. OMOLO
……………………………. .
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E. O. O’KUBASU
………………………………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
W. S. DEVERELL
……………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR