SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Shah Munge & Partners Ltd v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees & 3 others [2018] KECA 865 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 865 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
865
Citation
[2018] KECA 865 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil ApplicationPostureApplication for an injunction and stay of execution pending appealCoramW. KARANJA, HANNAH OKWENGU, MOHAMMED, J. Kamau, JUDGE OF APPEAL
Holding

The Court finds that the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal regarding the issue of liability for breach of contract. The Court also considers that the appeal will not be rendered nugatory.

Facts

The 1st respondent, National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees, claimed breach of contract and negligence against the applicant, Shah Munge & Partners Ltd, regarding Treasury Bill Number 1471. The applicant disputes the claim.

Issues

  1. Whether the intended appeal is arguable.
  2. Whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the injunction and stay of execution are granted.

Reasoning

The Court considers that an arguable appeal is sufficient, and that the appeal will not cause undue hardship to the applicant if granted.

Outcome

The Court grants the application for an injunction and stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Injunction and stay of execution pending appeal

Remedies

  • Injunction and stay of execution

Authorities cited

Cases cited (4)
  • Stanley Kang'ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter [2013] eKLR
  • Reliance Bank Ltd v Norlake Investments Ltd [2002] 1 EA 227
  • Reliance Bank Ltd vs Norlake Investments Ltd (supra)
  • Damji Pragji Mandavia v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (K) Ltd [2004] KLR 101
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case