[2015] KEHC 912 (KLR)
The court found that it had already determined the issue of jurisdiction in a previous ruling by Justice Onyancha, and that the 2nd defendant's dissatisfaction with that decision was not a sufficient ground to stay the proceedings. The court emphasized that the proper course for the 2nd defendant, if aggrieved, was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 912 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bookpoint Limited; Defendant: Guilders International Bank Ltd; Defendant: Guardian Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1807 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Oral Application for Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome
- Oral application for stay of proceedings dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing.
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Jurisdiction of High Court, Environment and Land Matters
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bookpoint Limited
Plaintiff
Guilders International Bank Ltd
Defendant
Guardian Bank Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Oral Application for Stay of Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision on jurisdiction over land and environment matters.
- 2 Whether the oral application for adjournment by the 2nd defendant is merited.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it had already determined the issue of jurisdiction in a previous ruling by Justice Onyancha, and that the 2nd defendant's dissatisfaction with that decision was not a sufficient ground to stay the proceedings. The court emphasized that the proper course for the 2nd defendant, if aggrieved, was to seek a stay from the relevant appellate court, not to delay proceedings in the High Court. The oral application for a stay was therefore without merit, as it amounted to a delaying tactic rather than a legitimate procedural request. The court exercised its discretion to refuse the stay and directed that the matter proceed to hearing as scheduled.
Court Disposition
Oral application for stay of proceedings dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing.
Orders
- The oral application for stay of proceedings is dismissed.
- The matter shall proceed to hearing as scheduled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 1807 OF 2002
FORMERLY MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 987 OF 2001
BOOKPOINT LIMITED................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GUILDERS INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD .........1ST DEFENDANT
GUARDIAN BANK LIMITED.............................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING ON DIRECTIONS
1. On 25. 5.2015, Justice Onyancha delivered a ruling in which he clearly stated that this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. In essence the learned judge dismissed the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Oduol learned advocate for the defendant. Being dissatisfied, the defendant filed a notice of appeal to challenge the aforesaid decision in the Court of Appeal.
2. The 2nd defendant’s application seeking to stay the plaintiff’s notice to show cause was placed before this court for hearing. Before the hearing of the aforesaid motion could commence, Mr. Oduol urged this court to stay the hearing of the matter for 30 days to await the decision of the Supreme Court on the question of jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine Land and Environment matters. Mr. Nagpal, learned advocate for the plaintiff strenuously opposed the application. He was of the view that the application was a delaying tactic which should not be entertained by this court.
3. I have considered the oral submissions of learned counsels.
This court is being asked to exercise its discretion to stay further proceedings of the matter to await an important decision by the Supreme Court. The Hon. Mr. Justice Onyancha has already decided on the question of jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that this matter is properly before this court. The 2nd defendant is unhappy with Justice Onyancha’s decision. In fact a notice of appeal has already been lodged. In my humble view, I find no genuine reason why I should adjourn the hearing of this matter. This court has already rendered itself on the question of jurisdiction hence it cannot go back there. If well advised the 2nd defendant should file the necessary application before the relevant court to stay further proceedings of this court.
4. In the end, I find no merit in the oral application. I direct that the matter proceeds to hearing as scheduled.
Dated and delivered in open court this 13th day of November, 2015.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
………………………………………. for the Plaintiff
……………………………………….for the Defendant