[2021] KECA 612 (KLR)

[2021] KECA 612 (KLR)

The Court found that while the applicant had demonstrated that the appeal was arguable, particularly on the issues of jurisdiction and locus standi, the applicant failed to satisfy the second limb of the test for stay of proceedings. Specifically, the applicant did not show, either in the Motion or in the supporting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KECA 612 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Yusuf Mbuno (CEO); Respondent: Okiya Omtata; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Devolution and Planning; Respondent: Public Service Commission; Respondent: State Corporations Advisory Committee; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Anne Thumbi (HRM); Respondent: Venazio Gachara Kimenju (Head Finance & Accounts); Respondent: Jack Odhoch (Head ICT)
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E368 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A Mohammed, S ole Kantai
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction Challenge, Locus Standi, Appealability, Nugatory Principle
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Jurisdiction Challenge Locus Standi Appealability Nugatory Principle

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yusuf Mbuno (CEO)

Appellant

Okiya Omtata

Respondent

Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Devolution and Planning

Respondent

Public Service Commission

Respondent

State Corporations Advisory Committee

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Anne Thumbi (HRM)

Respondent

Venazio Gachara Kimenju (Head Finance & Accounts)

Respondent

Jack Odhoch (Head ICT)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal to warrant a stay of proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while the applicant had demonstrated that the appeal was arguable, particularly on the issues of jurisdiction and locus standi, the applicant failed to satisfy the second limb of the test for stay of proceedings. Specifically, the applicant did not show, either in the Motion or in the supporting affidavit, what would be rendered nugatory if the stay was not granted. The Court, upon reviewing the record, also did not find any basis to conclude that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay. Consequently, the application for stay of proceedings did not meet the required threshold and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Motion for stay of proceedings is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.