[2022] KECA 868 (KLR)

[2022] KECA 868 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants' motion raised no new issues beyond those already determined in Civil Application No. E498 of 2021. While the applicants demonstrated arguability of the appeal, they failed to show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted. The court reiterated that both...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KECA 868 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: University Academic Staff Union (UASU) Executive, Kenyatta University Chapter; Applicant: University Academic Staff Union (Uasu) Secretary, Kenyatta University Chapter; Respondent: Frankline Kaburu Kinoti; Respondent: Crispus Koinange Wawire; Respondent: Anthony Wanyonyi Wasena; Respondent: Moses Onyango Opiyo
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application E534 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
HM Okwengu, S ole Kantai, A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Union Elections, Voters Register Update, Contempt Proceedings
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Union Elections Voters Register Update Contempt Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University Academic Staff Union (UASU) Executive, Kenyatta University Chapter

Applicant

University Academic Staff Union (Uasu) Secretary, Kenyatta University Chapter

Applicant

Frankline Kaburu Kinoti

Respondent

Crispus Koinange Wawire

Respondent

Anthony Wanyonyi Wasena

Respondent

Moses Onyango Opiyo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for grant of stay of execution pending appeal under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have raised any new issues not previously determined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' motion raised no new issues beyond those already determined in Civil Application No. E498 of 2021. While the applicants demonstrated arguability of the appeal, they failed to show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay was not granted. The court reiterated that both requirements under Rule 5(2)(b) must be satisfied for a stay to issue. As the applicants only met one limb, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the respondents.