Metropolitan Cannon General Insurance Co. Limited v Masambe (Civil Case E026 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7568 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling)

Metropolitan Cannon General Insurance Co. Limited v Masambe (Civil Case E026 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 7568 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7568 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Machakos Civil Case E026 of 2025 EN Maina, J May 28, 2026 Between Metropolitan Cannon General Insurance Co. Limited Applicant and Daniel Masambe Respondent Ruling 1.By a plaint dated 19th August 2025, the Plaintiff/Applicant sued its insured the Defendant/Respondent, seeking to avoid/repudiate an insurance policy between them on the ground that the insured used the vehicle for purposes other than that which the motor vehicle was insured for. 2.Simultaneously with the plaint, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking to stay proceedings in three (3) cases, Machakos SCCC No.E016 of 2025, E620 of 2025 & E621 of 2025, which cases were brought against the Defendant/Respondent by third parties who were allegedly involved in an accident involving the insured motor vehicle. It is intended that the proceedings in those cases, be stayed until this case is heard and determined. The gist of the application is that should the third party claims succeed then the Plaintiff/Applicant shall be held liable yet it wishes to repudiate/avoid the policy. 3.The application was not opposed. However, the grant of an order for stay of proceedings is a discretionary order which as, is always the case with discretionary orders, must not be granted as a matter of course but judicially, within known legal principles and only in exceptional cases. For that reason this court has to satisfy itself that the order is merited before it can be granted, hence this ruling. 4.As noted in the Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition V.37 at paragraph 330:“The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case; and therefore, the courts general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceedings beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.” 5.This in my view resonates well with Article 159 of the Constitution which enjoins this court to settle disputes expeditiously – justice shall not be delayed. 6.In the case of Global Tours & Travels Limited v Five Continents Travel Limited [2015] KECA 789 (KLR) Winding Up Cause No.43 of 2000 Ringera J, as he then was observed that an order for stay of proceedings should not be confused with an order for stay of execution and that stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action, which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation and infringes on the right of access to justice, the right to be heard without delay and, over all, the right to fair trial and hence the test ought to be high and stringent. 7.Similarly, in the case of Christopher Ndolo Mutuku & Another v CFC Stanbic Bank Limited [2015] KEHC 6751 (KLR)the court stated:“What matters in an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal is the overall impression the court makes out of the total sum of the circumstances of each case, which should also arouse almost a compulsion that the proceedings should be stayed in the interest of justice.” 8.Applying the above principles to this case, I am not persuaded that this is a proper case to grant an order for stay of the proceedings in the court below. Those proceedings concern plaintiffs who are not parties in this case. The issues between them and the Defendant/Respondent in this case touch on liability. The Plaintiff/Applicant’s place in those proceedings other than being an insurer, would be of relevance only if a declaratory suit were to be brought against it by those plaintiffs if their claims against the respondent succeed. Moreover the relationship between the Plaintiff/Applicant and the Defendant/Respondent herein is governed by The Insurance (Motor Vehicle Third Party Risks) Act and I believe that the Applicant herein reserves the right to repudiate or avoid the policy independently of the proceedings in the court below and even while those proceedings continue. 9.The upshot is that the application dated 19th August 2025 is not merited and the same is dismissed. 10.As for costs given the relationship between the parties herein the order that commends itself to me is that costs shall be in the cause.Orders accordingly. RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.E. N. MAINAJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Munyoki for Mutinda for the DefendantNo appearance for the PlaintiffMary - Court Assistant/Interpreter