Middle Town Forex Bureau Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya [2016] KEHC 1074 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT NAIROBI

JUDICIAL REVIEW NO.  28   OF 2015

IN THE MATER OF AN APPLICATION BY MIDDLE TOWN FOREX BUREAU LTDFOR

JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ORDER   53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

MIDDLE TOWN FOREX BUREAU LTD................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

CENTRAL BANK OF KENYA............................................................RESPONDENT

RULING

1. This ruling  determines  two applications  filed  by the applicant  Middle Town Forex  Bureau Limited on 30th  May  2016   and  7th September 2016 respectively.  The application  dated  30th  May 2016  seeks  for,  among others, and principally, stay  of execution  against the judgment   of Honourable  Justice Korir delivered   on  12th  May   2016  whereas  the application  dated  7th  September, 2016  seeks for  reinstatement   of the interim orders  of stay issued  on 30th May  2016.

2. In the  notice of motion dated 30th May 2016  and filed  in court  on 31st May 2016, brought under the provisions of Order  51,Order  42 Rule  4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections  3,3A of the Civil Procedure  Act  the applicant  seeks  for orders:

a. Spent

b. Spent

c. A stay of the ruling  and order of  the Honourable  Justice Korir  dated  19th  May  2016   and all other  consequential  orders until the  hearing   and   determination  of the appeal.

d. That an order for stay of the respondent’s decision to levy a penalty of kshs 500,000 against the applicant be granted pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein.

e. That costs be in the cause hereof.

3. The application is predicated on the grounds that:

1. This court dismissed an application seeking injunctive orders dated January 28th, 2016 on May 19th 2016(sic);

2. The applicant   has duly exercise her right of appeal hereof, it filed its notice of appeal on May 23rd, 2016;

3. The said appeal is arguable and has overwhelming chances   of success;

4. The appeal will be   rendered   nugatory if a stay is not granted herein;

5. The said contempt   has inconvenienced the applicant   and its operations;

6. Pursuant   to the leave of this court dated 29th January 2015, this court granted the applicant leave to file for Judicial Review orders;

7. Further, that the court granted an order   dated 29th January   2015 for leave to operate as stay hereof;

8. That by  letter  dated  15th  January  2016  the respondent  instructed its  advocates to return  two(2)  bankers cheques  No. 028227 and  028228 for shs  65,000 each and withheld  processing  of trading  licences;

9. That the  applicant  has been greatly  inconvenienced  and has lost  huge sums  of money   and rent   deposit  in respect of Buruburu Fair Centre   among  other services  as a result of  the said  act by the respondent;

10. That there is  another letter  the applicant  wrote to the respondent  seeking its  authority to carry  out money  transfer  services   in conjunction with  KCB Bank  which  was  turned  down   by the bank  citing this matter;

11. That the applicant prays for the court’s intervention to prevent the respondent from undertaking any decision that is prejudicial   to the applicant’s business hereof; and

12. That unless the application is heard   immediately, the applicant   will suffer loss and   damage.

4. The application is further supported by  the affidavit   of Stephen  Gitonga  Mbaabu  the applicant’s Chairman, sworn  on 30th May 2016  wherein  the deponent  reiterates  the grounds in support  of  the application as reproduced   above; while annexing letters  dated  5th March   2015;15th January 2016; 19th March  2015  and two  bankers  cheques.

5. The respondent filed a  replying affidavit  sworn on  27th June  2016 by Sylvester  Cheruiyot Sawe, the  Manager  in charge  of Forex  Bureau Surveillance Section of Central Bank of Kenya, deposing, among  others, that-  the applicant’s  judicial   Review proceedings before this court  were dismissed  on  12th May  2016  as shown  by  copy of judgment  annexed; That the application for stay herein filed by the applicant is speculative, misconceived, incompetent, bad in law and an abuse   of the process of the court since there are no positive orders   discernible from the judgment of the court capable of being stayed; That applicant  has only had  its license  renewal  application held in  abeyance pending the payment  of fines  lawfully levied; and that the application to open a new outlet is  also held  in abeyance as such the intended  appeal will not be rendered nugatory  as alleged; that the  applicant   has not  met the threshold  for stay pending  appeal  as no substantial   loss would  be suffered  by the applicant if orders  of stay  were not  issued; that the   issue of   processing  of the license  for  Buruburu outlet is a new issue that  was never  brought  before the court   at the  leave  stage  and  as such, that issue can only  be subject  of fresh  Judicial  Review  proceedings  for which  leave  has   to be  obtained  and that similar  issues  were raised  before delivery  of judgment; that the applicant   has not   raised any doubts  nor has  it adduced  evidence on the respondent’s  financial  inability to refund any money  paid to  it should  the appellate  court find  that the said  sums   were  paid  in error; that there  is no  demonstration of an arguable  appeal and that the  present application  is completely  unnecessary and   a mere  waste  of precious Judicial time hence  it  should be  dismissed  with costs  to the respondent.

6. The applicant’s second application is the one dated 6th September  2016  filed under  certificate of urgency urging  the court  to reinstate  the orders issued  by this court  and extend them pending the hearing  and determination  of the notice of motion  dated  30th  May 2016; and that  costs be in the cause.

7. The grounds  upon the latter application is  premised  are that  on 6th September, 2016  this court  ordered  this matter to  be taken  to the registry because  the Notice  of Appeal  was  not in the  court  file hence  the orders were not extended; that  the advocate  for the  applicant  proceeded  to the registry and  retrieved  the Notice  of Appeal  and filed it herein; that if stay  is not  granted  the appeal  which  has  overwhelming chances  of success shall be rendered  nugatory.

8. The latter application is supported  by   the affidavit   sworn by Henry Kurauka Advocate sworn  on 6th September  2016  which   replicates the grounds set out  above  in support  of the application  while  annexing   the notice of Appeal  dated  16th May  2016  and filed on  the same  day but served  on  6th September  2016  upon the Respondent’s  advocates.

9. That latter  application  was equally  opposed  by the respondent  through  a replying  affidavit  sworn on 8th  September  2016  by Eddy Owiti  Advocate  principally outlining  the history  of this matter  and pointing   out in  his deposition that the  advocate for the applicant, Mr Kurauka, had  not even  complied  with  the  direction given on 28th June  2016  by Honourable  Odunga  J as   to the processing the  earlier  application  for stay for purposes of   its hearing.

10. Further, that when  the mater came  up for  mention on 27th July 2016  the applicant’s  counsel  lied to the court that  there  were  negotiations to settle  the matter out of court  and the  court gave  a mention date for 6th September  2016 by  which date, there  was  no Notice  of Appeal  which  was  an important  document  hence the court  referred  this matter  back to the registry.  That  as at  6th September 2016, the  Notice of Appeal  had never been served  upon the respondent  until 6th  September  2016  and which is in  contravention of Rule  77(1)  of the Court  of Appeal  Rules, 2010.

11. That  although  the applicant  claims  that it  has an arguable  appeal, it has  failed to frame  any  issues it  feels  the learned  judge  erred  on and  neither  is  there any draft  Memorandum   of Appeal  annexed  hence  there is no Notice of Appeal  on record  and so the  applicant  is undeserving  of the discretionary  orders sought  from this court.

12. In addition, it  was  a deposed  that there  is no order capable  of  being stayed as the court’s judgment of  12th May 2016   was a dismissal  order which is  essentially a negative  order incapable  of  being stayed.  It  was therefore deposed that the application  dated  6th September  2016  was a waste  of precious judicial  time and that the  same should  be dismissed.

13. The applicant  also filed  written  submission dated  31st   October  2016   in proposition for the application dated  30th May 2016  whereas  the respondent  filed its  submissions dated  31st October  2016 opposing both applications dated  30th  May 2016  and  7th September   2016 respectively.

14. The said  submissions  were highlighted  orally on 1st November  2016 before me with Mr Kurauka  counsel for the applicant relying  wholly  on the grounds  in support of his  client’s  two applications; the supporting  affidavits and written  submissions   while  Mr Owiti counsel for the  respondent   too relied on his  client’s  opposing  replying affidavits and written   submissions  while emphasizing that the judgment  of Korir J  dismissed  the Judicial Review  application on 12th May  2016 with no  orders as to  costs  and that  an  order of  dismissal  being  a negative order, was incapable  of being  stayed.  He  relied  on several  authorities  contained  in the  respondent’s  written  submissions including  Peter Mueria Ole Munya and 4 Others V Principal  Magistrate Narok and 6  Others [2015]  e KLR  at paragraphs  17, 18 and  20 of the authority.

15. It  was  also submitted by the respondent’s counsel  that the conditions  for grant of stay of  execution  pending  appeal as  stipulated  in Order   42  Rule  6  (2)  of the Civil  Procedure  Rules  have not  been fulfilled  to warrant  stay to issue  and  that there   was no arguable  appeal.  Counsel urged the court to dismiss the applicant’s two applications with costs.

Determination

16. I have  carefully  considered the applicant’s  two applications, that of  30th May  2016  and  7th September,  2016, with the  first  application  seeking  stay of  execution against  the judgment   of Honourable  Korir  J  delivered on  12th May,  2016 (and not 19th May,2016 as pleaded by Mr Kurauka counsel for the applicant) and the second application seeking for the  reinstatement  of the  interim orders  of stay issued  on 6th June   2016  which lapsed  on  6th September  2016  when this court  failing to locate any Notice of Appeal, upon which such  application for stay  of  execution  pending appeal  would be  anchored.

17. It is worth noting that the orders of 6th September 2016  prompted  the filing of the  application dated  6th September  2016   to reinstate  the temporary  stay which had been  issued on  6th June  2016  by Honourable   Odunga J maintaining  status  quo.

18. I have also considered the replying affidavits to both applications   and both parties’ written and oral submissions as supported by statutory and case law.

19. In my humble view, the issues for determination in both applications as argued together are:

1. Whether the applicant’s application  satisfies the conditions for grant of stay of execution of the judgment  of Honourable  Korir J  delivered on 12th May  2016  pending appeal;

2. What orders should this court make?

3. Who should bear costs of the two applications?

20. The starting  point  is that  the application dated   6th September  2016  is  subsumed  into the  application  dated  30th May  2016  upon the  court  granting interim stay  pending   determination of the  two applications  as per this  ruling.

21. On  whether  the applicant’s  application  dated   30th May 2016  has satisfied  the conditions  for  stay of execution of judgment  of  12th May 2016  pending  hearing and  determination of the appeal, the applicant  through its counsel Mr  Kurauka  submitted that  the applicant having exercised its constitutional right to an  appeal, which appeal is  arguable, unless stay is  granted, the appeal  shall be   rendered  nugatory  and that the  applicant  shall be  forced  to pay  the  shs   500,000 fine imposed  by the respondent, yet  it has  lost huge  sums of  money  and rent  deposit  in respect of Buruburu  Fair Centre among  other  services as a result   of the respondent’s acts of refusal  to issue  or approve  licences  for the applicant to operate  the Buruburu Branch; and to  grant  authority  to the applicant  to carry out  money  transfer  services  in conjunction  with Kenya Commercial Bank  because of the pendency of this  matter.

22. The  applicant   therefore  urged this  court to  intervene  to prevent  the respondent from undertaking  any  decision that is  prejudicial  to the  applicant’s  business to avoid the  losses and damage being  suffered  by the applicant.

23. On the part of the respondent, it is contended that the  application for stay of execution before this court is misconceived  and lacking in merit  because  the  judgment  of Honourable  Korir J  dismissed  the applicant’s Judicial Review  proceedings  with no orders as to costs.  That  an order of  dismissal  of proceedings  is a negative  order hence  there is  nothing  to be executed capable  of being  stayed.

24. In addition, it was contended and submitted by the respondent’s counsel   that there is no appeal as the Notice of Appeal filed on 16th May 2016 was only served on 6th September 2016 in contravention of the provisions of Rule 77 (1) of the Court of Appeal   Rules.

25. Further, that in any event  the  conditions  for  grant of stay of Execution  pending  appeal as  stipulated under Order 42  Rule  6  (2)  of the Civil Procedure Rules  have not  been met  by the applicant’s  application.

26. The respondent   further submitted  that the applicant had failed to demonstrate  that it had  an  arguable   appeal  because it never  attempted to annex a draft  Memorandum of  Appeal for the  court to appreciate  the grounds  of appeal  contemplated in the Notice  of Appeal which was served out of the stipulated period.

27. To answer  the first  issue,  it is  important  to note that  indeed, the judgment  of Honourable  Korir  J delivered on  12th May  2016 dismissed  the applicant’s  case after finding that the applicant  had not  demonstrated that Judicial Review  orders  can issue in the circumstances of its case.

28. It is the above order of dismissal  of its Judicial Review  application  dated  2nd January 2015 that the applicant herein now seeks to challenge  before the Court  of Appeal  and so it  filed a  Notice of Appeal  dated  16th May  2016  on the  same day, but never served it upon the respondent until 6th September  2016 contrary to Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

29. Even then, service of the said order was only effected upon the respondent on 6th September, 2016 after this court failed to locate any such Notice of Appeal on record and neither  did  the applicant’s counsel have  a copy for the  court’s  perusal when the matter came up for consideration on 6th September  2016,  yet the applicant   was  enjoying  temporary  orders  of stay.  This was  contrary to Rule  77(1)  of the Appellate  Jurisdiction  Rules  2010 which provides that:

“77(1) an intended appellant shall, before or within seven days after lodging notice of appeal, serve copies thereof on all persons directly affected by the appeal….”

30. When this  court realized  that there was no  Notice of  Appeal,  it declined  to hear  an application for stay pending  nothing  and  it  returned  the file to  the registry and  that is  when the  applicant’s  counsel  hurriedly  filed the application dated 9th September  2016  under certificate of urgency, annexing  thereto  a Notice  of  Appeal filed on  16th May  2016 and served   upon the respondent  on  6th September 2016.  The applicant’s counsel’s hurried  action  was  prompted by the  fact that the interim orders  of stay which  had been  extended  by the court  on  27th July  2016  had lapsed  on 6th September, 2016 hence the need to seek  orders  of the court for reinstatement.

31. In the notice of motion for  Judicial Review  dated  28th  January 2015   the exparte applicant  herein  sought for:

a. Judicial Review  orders of certiorari to bring into the court  and  quash  the decision of the respondent, its servants, agents, employees  or anybody  else  whatsoever   acting  on its  behalf   of   19th January  2015  levying  a penalty  of the sum  of kshs   500,000; and

b. Judicial Review  orders of prohibition to prohibit  the respondent and others named  above  from cancelling the applicant’s  trading license  and or  implementing  its decision of 19th January  2015  levying  of penalty  of  shs  500,000 and recovering  the same from  the applicant  non-interest bearing deposit   held with   the respondent or recovering  it  in any other  way thereof.

32. The learned judge, Korir J, after hearing the application on merit dismissed the said application after hearing it on merits, without any order as to costs. What therefore  remained after the dismissal of the Judicial Review application was nothing since the decision  of the respondent, that of levying  a fine of  shs  500,000  for violation of the  Forex Bureau Guidelines  and failure to pay such penalty that would lead  to revocation of  the Bureau’s  license had not been brought into the High Court for purposes of quashing.

33. Further, in the judgment, and  in the pleadings for leave to institute the judicial review proceedings, there was no prayer touching  on denial of authority by the respondent for the applicant to  operate  the Buruburu Centre Branch or any  other branch, which issues  have been brought  up in this latter application for stay pending appeal and which I respectively find to be mischievous  and an  abuse  of court process as those issues  did not  form the substratum of the complaint  before the court as issues for determination by Hon Korir J hence this court cannot determine, at this stage, any new cause  of action  contemplated by the  applicant.

34. Furthermore, an order for stay of execution  is  ordinarily  an interim  order which  seeks to delay  the performance  of a positive obligation that is set out  in a  decree or order as a result of  a judgment, or to prohibit the doing of some action. The delay  of performance  presupposes  the  existence of a situation to stay a  decree  called positive order, either an order that has not been  complied with or has  partly been  complied with see Co-operative  Bank of Kenya Limited V Banking Insurance  & Finance  Union (K) [2015] e KLR  per. Kantai J.A., citing  with approval   the Court of Appeal of Uganda  decision  in Mugenyi &  Co- Advocates  V National  Insurance  Corporation  CA 13/1994  where it  was stated:

“…….an order for stay of execution must be intended to serve a purpose…..”

35. In  this case, Order  42 Rule  6(2)  of the Civil Procedure  Rules confers  on this court  jurisdiction  to order for  stay of  execution of decree  or order  pending hearing and determination of an appeal  and provides  that:

(2)  No order  for stay of execution shall be made  under Sub rule (1)  unless  substantial  loss may  result  to the applicant unless the order is made and  that the   application has been made  without  unreasonable  delay; and

(b) Such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.

36. Grant  of an  order of  stay pending  appeal is  a discretionary  order  and the three conditions  espoused  in Order   42 Rule  6 (2)  above have to be  fulfilled   namely, that the applicant  must demonstrate that  it is likely  to suffer  substantial  loss if  stay is  declined; that  the application is made expeditiously and without unreasonable delay and that the applicant  has given such security as may be binding upon it for the due performance of  such decree or order as the court may order. In addition, the applicant  must  demonstrate  that it  has an arguable  appeal and that  unless stay is granted, the appeal, if successful, shall be  rendered  nugatory.

37. I will revert to the provisions of Order 42 Rule 6((2) of the Civil procedure later after discussing the question of whether a negative order of dismissal of the judicial review proceeding can be stayed.

38. I have  already set out  the nature of the Judicial  Review orders of  certiorari and prohibition as sought  by the applicant, which orders  Honourable Korir J  in his judgment  of 12th May  206  declined to grant.

39. The court having dismissed   the applicant’s application for Judicial Review orders of certiorari and  prohibition, the question is whether there is any positive  order for  implementation in the decree  of the court and therefore  capable  of being  stayed  pending  appeal?

40. The answer  can be found in  several decisions of this court  and of the Court  of Appeal in Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited  v  Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) [2015] eKLRciting with approval the decision in Executive  Estates  Ltd V  Kenya  Posts  and Another [2005]  1 EA  53   stated:

“The Court has identified negative orders as orders that are incapable of execution. Consequently, an order for stay of execution cannot be issued in respect of such an order. That was the position in Executive Estates Limited v Kenya Posts & Anor. [2005] 1 E.A. 53 where it was stated:

“………The order which dismissed   the suit  was  a negative   order  which is  not capable  of execution…..”

41. In Peter Mueria Ole Munya & 4 Others Vs Principal Magistrate, Narok  & 6 Others  (supra)  the  court  held  that:

“ If a Judicial Review  application is dismissed, the court  does not make  a positive   order which is  capable of  being  executed  and   which may  in turn be  stayed……Accordingly  the orders  of stay under Order 42 Rule 6  of the Civil Procedure  Rules cannot  be granted  by this court…..Even if the orders  of stay of  execution   were available  to the applicants, I  find that  they have not satisfied the conditions for  grant of stay of  execution under  Order  42 Rule  6 (2)  of the Civil Procedure Rules.”

42. In Devani  & 4 Others V Joseph  Ngindan &  Others CA Nairobi  136/2004  the Court of Appeal   cited with  approval  Wananchi Group Kenya Ltd V Commissioner of Investigation  and Enforcement  [2014] e KLR  that :

“ By  dismissing the Judicial Review  application  the superior court   did not  thereby  grant any  positive  order in favour  of the respondents  which  is capable  of execution.  If the order sought is granted   it will have the   indirect effect of reviving the dismissed application.”

43. A party who elects to approach the court by way of Judicial Review proceedings while knowing that Judicial Review  proceedings  do not  determine   the merits  of the claim, takes the  risk  since, like  in this case, once the Judicial Review prayers  were  dismissed, nothing  remained  on record  to be stayed as there is no positive order capable of execution through these proceedings.(see Peter Mueria Ole Munya  (supra) case.

44. In other words, execution by the respondent of its decision to recover  the penalty  levies upon the  applicant does not  amount  to execution of decree or judgment  of this court  as this court  did not by its  judgment  of  12th May 2016  decree  any money  due   to the respondent  by the applicant.

45. As correctly  submitted by the respondent’s  counsel, the order  dismissing the Judicial Review  application with no order as to costs in these proceedings  did not amount  to an executable decree and therefore  to attempt  to stay that  order, even  assuming that the applicant  has fulfilled all the conditions for stay  pending appeal, would be  tantamount to establishing  a new cause of action for the applicant.

46. As Judicial  Review proceedings   do not  look into  the merits  of the decision of the public  body but  the legality of the process  giving  rise to the   impugned   decision, to stay   the judgment  of Honourable  Korir  J  made  on  12th May 2016  is the  same  as staying the decision  of the respondent to  levy penalties  upon the applicant  for violation of the Forex Bureau guidelines, when the merit of that decision was never subject of  Judicial  Review  proceedings.

47. In the end, I am in  agreement  with the respondent’s  counsel’s submission  that there    was no  positive  order  in the dismissal   order of Honourable Korir J, made on 12th May, 2016 capable  of being  stayed  pending  appeal and  I would  accordingly  decline  to grant  any  order  of stay  sought.  I dismiss that prayer.

48. Assuming that I am to be  found to have  erred  in my finding herein  that there  is no positive order  capable  of execution or being  stayed  pending appeal, the other question to be  answered  is whether  there is  any arguable   appeal  which, if successful, would be  rendered  nugatory   unless  stay of  execution is granted.

49. An arguable appeal is not necessarily one that must succeed, but that the court   should, if it is  satisfied  that there is  an arguable  appeal,  it should  grant  stay to  prevent  a successful  appellant  from  becoming  a holder of a barren  result  for reasons that they  cannot  realize  the fruits  of their success  in the appeal, so that  the appellant  if successful, is not  reduced  into  a pious  explorer  in the Judicial processes. In applications for stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, however, it is not in the province of this court to say whether or not the appeal is arguable. Only the Court of Appeal can establish that fact upon considering the grounds of appeal placed before it. In this case, however, the applicant has not even attempted to draft any grounds upon which it seeks to challenge the judgment of Hon Korir J.

50. The applicant  after filing the Notice of Appeal  on 16th May 2016 never  bothered  to serve  that  Notice of Appeal  upon the respondent as can be seen from the proceedings  of  6th September  2016.  Furthermore, the applicant  never even sought  and has  not sought  leave of  court to enlarge  time within which that Notice of Appeal  ought  to have been  served   upon the  respondent, as required by Rule 77(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

51. On the conditions for stay pending appeal and whether the applicant has satisfied those conditions, the applicant submitted that its business will be   inconvenienced  if the   stay is not granted, as its license  to operate  will be  revoked  and that  the respondent  will recover its   non interest   bearing  deposit.

52. In my  humble view,  although the application for stay was filed timeously, it has not been demonstrated  that the applicant  stands to suffer  any substantial  loss if  the stay is not  granted  as the penalty  of shs   500,000/- is  not recoverable  in these  proceedings  by way  of execution of decree or  judgment  of  12th  May  2016. Furthermore, it has not been shown that an alleged business inconvenience is an irreparable or substantial loss which cannot be compensated by an award of costs of damages.

53. In addition, some of the grounds that the applicant is hinging its application for stay pending appeal are new matters which were not part of the grounds upon which leave to apply for judicial review  orders was premised. To allow stay on those grounds is to found a new cause of action in favour of the applicant after judgment which this court cannot do.  In that regard, the   issue of   processing  of the license  for  Buruburu outlet is a new issue that  was never  brought  before the court   at the  leave  stage  and  as such, that issue can only  be subject  of fresh  Judicial  Review  proceedings   for which  leave  has   to be  obtained.

54. Furthermore, it has not been shown that assuming the applicant’s appeal is arguable, if successful, it will be rendered nugatory.  It was not shown that the applicant’s business is dependent on Kshs 500,000 or that the applicant’s business cannot survive without Ksh 500,000 which it is being asked to pay CBK in penalties. This court takes judicial notice that Central bank of Kenya is capable of paying Kshs 500,000 to the applicant if that sum is paid to CBK by the applicant herein and the appeal if filed is successful.

55. In the end, I find that the applicant  has failed to  demonstrate that it is entitled  to the orders  of stay of execution  sought in the twin  applications  dated   30th May  2016   and  7th September  2016 respectively.  Accordingly, the two applications are dismissed, with the resultant effect that there is no order of stay of execution of the judgment of the Honourable Korir J delivered on 12th May 2016.

56. The two applications were considered as one; however, I find that the respondent is unnecessarily being dragged into these proceedings which this court finds to be frivolous. I order that the applicant shall pay costs of the application for stay pending appeal which is hereby dismissed.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 24th day of November, 2016.

R.E. ABURILI

JUDGE

In the presence of

Mr Kurauka advocate for the applicant

Mr Okoth h/b for Chacha Odera for respondent

CA: Adline