[2025] KEHC 3050 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of proceedings was properly served on the appellants/respondents, who failed to file any response. By operation of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the application was deemed unopposed. The court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of proceedings,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 3050 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Hussein Abdi Dofa; Appellant: Sadick Mustafa Dofa; Respondent: Dahabo Abdi Dofa; Respondent: Mohammed Woche
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Marsabit
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E001 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of proceedings allowed; proceedings stayed pending determination of intended appeal; costs in the cause.
- Judges
- FR Olel
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Appeals Process, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Hussein Abdi Dofa
Appellant
Sadick Mustafa Dofa
Appellant
Dahabo Abdi Dofa
Respondent
Mohammed Woche
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of proceedings in the appeal pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal in High Court Misc Application No E007 of 2023.
- 2 Whether the application for stay is unopposed and the effect thereof.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of proceedings was properly served on the appellants/respondents, who failed to file any response. By operation of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the application was deemed unopposed. The court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of proceedings, finding that the applicants had demonstrated a risk of prejudice if the appeal proceeded before the determination of their intended appeal in High Court Misc Application No E007 of 2023. The court concluded that it was in the interest of justice to allow the application and stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the intended appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of proceedings allowed; proceedings stayed pending determination of intended appeal; costs in the cause.
Orders
- Proceedings in this appeal are stayed pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal in High Court Misc Application No E007 of 2023.
- Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
Dofa & another v Dofa & another (Civil Appeal E001 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 3050 (KLR) (13 March 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 3050 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Marsabit
Civil Appeal E001 of 2025
FR Olel, J
March 13, 2025
Between
Hussein Abdi Dofa
1st Appellant
Sadick Mustafa Dofa
2nd Appellant
and
Dahabo Abdi Dofa
1st Respondent
Mohammed Woche
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. The Respondents/ Applicants filed a Notice of Motion application dated 14th January 2025 seeking the following orders;a.Spentb.Spentc.Spentd.That this honorable court be pleased to issue a stay of proceedings in this Appeal herein pending hearing and final determination of the intended appeal in High Court Misc Application No E007 of 2023. e.That costs of this Application be in the cause
2. The Application is supported by the grounds made on the face of the said Application and the supporting affidavit of the 2nd applicant, Mohammed Woche who contends that they were dissatisfied with the ruling of Hon Justice Nyaga delivered on 17th December 2024 and had filed a notice of Appeal giving notice of their intention to challenge the said Ruling.
3. The Appeal filed had high chances of success and unless the orders sought were granted, they stood to be extremely prejudiced as the respondents would prosecute this Appeal before their Appeal to the court of Appeal was heard on merit. It was therefore in the interest of justice for the said orders to be granted.
4. When the parties' counsels appeared before court on 06. 02. 2025, the respondents counsel, Mr. Halake stated that he had not been served with this Application and the court directed that he be served to enable him file a response. On 06. 03. 2025 the respondent counsel did not attend court and the affidavit of service filed showed that he was served with this Application through his email on 2nd February 2025.
5. The Appellants/Respondents did not file any response to this Application and by dint of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil procedure Rules, the same is deemed to be unopposed as no response to the said application has been filed.
6. The Notice of Motion Application dated 14. 01. 2025 is therefore allowed in terms of prayer (4). The proceeding herein will be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal filed by the Respondents/Applicants to the court of Appeal.
7. The costs of this Application will be in the cause.
8. It is so ordered.
READ, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MARSABIT ON THIS 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025. FRANCIS RAYOLA OLELJUDGEDelivered on the virtual platform, Team this 13th day of March, 2025. In the presence of: -…………………………………………………… Appellant…………………………………………………… Respondent…………………………………………………… Court Assistant