[2021] KEHC 6510 (KLR)
The court found that since the trial before the magistrate's court had already been concluded and was only pending delivery of judgment, granting a stay of proceedings would serve no practical purpose. The applicant's grievances regarding interlocutory decisions and the desire to adduce further evidence could be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 6510 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Great Rift Express Shuttle Services; Respondent: Wandera Mubaka Amando
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 17 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Interlocutory Appeals, Additional Evidence on Appeal
- 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
Great Rift Express Shuttle Services
Appellant
Wandera Mubaka Amando
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of proceedings before the trial magistrate's court pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant can raise issues from interlocutory decisions in a substantive appeal after judgment.
- 3 Whether additional evidence can be adduced on appeal under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the trial before the magistrate's court had already been concluded and was only pending delivery of judgment, granting a stay of proceedings would serve no practical purpose. The applicant's grievances regarding interlocutory decisions and the desire to adduce further evidence could be addressed in a substantive appeal after judgment, utilizing the procedures provided under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. Therefore, the application for stay was dismissed as premature and unnecessary at this stage.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2021
GREAT RIFT EXPRESS SHUTTLESERVICES.............APPELLANT/APPLICANT
VERSUS
WANDERA MUBAKA AMANDO....................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
The Applicant seeks to stay further proceedings before the trial Magistrate’s court pending the hearing and determination of the appeal that has been filed. The Appeal lodged challenges interlocutory decisions made within the trial process. The Applicant is aggrieved that it was denied the opportunity to properly ventilate its case before the trial Magistrate Court. From available anecdotal evidence, it is clear that the Applicant’s sense of grievance may have some justification. However, from the submission made, it is evident that so much water has passed under the bridge. The case has been concluded and is pending delivery of judgment. This court is of the considered view that the issues that the Applicant intends to raise in the interlocutory appeal may properly be raised and argued in the substantive appeal, if the Applicant will be not be satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Magistrate’s court.
As for additional evidence, there is a procedure under the Civil Procedure Act and Rulesmade thereunder that allow the production of additional evidence on appeal should the Applicant desire to produce further medical evidence. That being the case, tis court is of the opinion that the Applicant should await the delivery of the judgment by the trial magistrate’s court so that it can rise all the issues, including those that arose during the course of the trial, in the substantive appeal, if it is so minded to file an appeal, and if the decision is rendered against it.
For the above reasons, the application cannot be allowed. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
DATED at KITALE this 3rd day of June 2021.
L. KIMARU
JUDGE