BY SAM ALFAN.
A salt manufacturing company has suffered a major blow after the Supreme Court declined to stop Water Resources Management Authority from demanding payment of Sh185 million.
The apex court declined to hear the appeal by Krystalline ltd, paving the way for the authority to demand the money after winning the case.
Supreme Court Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu , Justice Mohammed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Isaac Lenaola and William Ouko dismissed the company’s application stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain petition of appeal and the attendant application for stay of execution.
“We are convinced that no contentious question of constitutional interpretation or application arose for determination by the superior courts below to warrant the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction as of right under Article 163 (4)(a) of the Constitution,” ruled the supreme court judges.
The court upheld preliminary objection by Water Resources Management Authority (Warma) that challenged to the Court’s jurisdiction to determine both the application and appeal for failing to meet the jurisdictional threshold.
The company had filed the application seeking a stay of execution of the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal delivered on February 23, this year by judges Daniel Musinga, Hellen Omondi and Ngenye Macharia.
Through the Chief Executive officer Hasmita Patel, the salt manufacturer said the appeal was arguable with high chances of success.
He said unless the orders sought are granted, the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
The company said Warma would execute the judgement and demand Sh185.5 million, a move that might force the firm to shut down its operations.
“There will be no prejudice suffered by the Water Resources Management Authority, which can be compensated by way of costs should the appeal be dismissed and it is in the interest of justice to grant the prayers sought,” company pleaded.
The Authority opposed the application through Chief Executive Officer Mohamed Shurie arguing that Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
It was Warma’s case that the appeal was improperly lodged under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution as it does not raise questions involving the interpretation or application of the Constitution.
The Authority told the Supreme court that Krystalline’s grievance entails a challenge on the quantum awarded and the application is an attempt to avoid payment of the judgment sum.
The court heard that the company has not demonstrated that it is unable to settle the sum awarded and in any event, the appeal will not be rendered nugatory as the respondent is capable of refunding the judgment sum if the appeal is allowed.
