[2017] KEHC 1236 (KLR)
The court found that if the respondents were allowed to proceed with the counter-claim in the lower court, the appeal would be rendered nugatory, as the respondents could obtain and execute a judgment against the appellant before the appeal is heard. The court agreed with the appellant that substantial loss would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1236 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: MX Frys Limited; Respondent: Velji Dharamshi Sha; Respondent: Tarachand Dharamshi; Respondent: Rameshchndra Dharamshi; Respondent: Navinchandra Dharamshi Shah
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 493 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of proceedings allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Ex Parte Orders, Setting Aside Orders, Counter Claims
- 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
MX Frys Limited
Appellant
Velji Dharamshi Sha
Respondent
Tarachand Dharamshi
Respondent
Rameshchndra Dharamshi
Respondent
Navinchandra Dharamshi Shah
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to an order for stay of proceedings in the lower court pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the appellant will suffer substantial loss if the stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the appellant was condemned unheard in the lower court proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that if the respondents were allowed to proceed with the counter-claim in the lower court, the appeal would be rendered nugatory, as the respondents could obtain and execute a judgment against the appellant before the appeal is heard. The court agreed with the appellant that substantial loss would result if the stay was not granted, and that it would be unjust to allow the proceedings to continue without the appellant being heard. The court was satisfied that the interests of justice required granting the stay to prevent the appellant from being condemned unheard. Accordingly, the motion for stay of proceedings was allowed.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of proceedings allowed.
Orders
- Stay of proceedings in Nairobi C.M.C.C No. 2081 of 2008 granted in terms of prayer 3 of the motion dated 18.9.2017.
- Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2017
MX FRYS LIMITED ..........................................................APPELLANT
-V E R S U S –
VELJI DHARAMSHI SHA .......................................1ST RESPONDENT
TARACHAND DHARAMSHI ....................................2ND RESPONDENT
RAMESHCHNDRA DHARAMSHI ............................3RD RESPONDENT
NAVINCHANDRA DHARAMSHI SHAH ...................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1) The appellant herein has taken out the motion dated 18. 9.2017 in which it sought for inter alia an order for stay of proceedings in Nairobi C.M.C.C no. 2081 of 2008. The motion is supported by the affidavit of Aziz Mohamed. When served, the respondents opposed the motion by filing the replying affidavit of Jared Omari Mituga. Learned counsels appearing in the matter recorded a consent order to have the motion disposed of by written submissions.
2) I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion and the facts deponed in the affidavits filed in support and against the application. I have also considered the rival submissions. It is the submission of the appellant that the primary suit was dismissed and the counter-claim ordered to proceed exparte for hearing on 10. 5.2017. The appellant further avers that it came to learn of the development on 23rd August 2017. The appellant took out the motion dated 26. 5.2017 and applied for the dismissal orders to set aside. The appellant’s motion was ordered dismissed on 25. 8.2017 for lacking in merit. The appellant stated that the ruling was delivered in the absence of the appellant who had no notice.
3) The appellant being dissatisfied, filed this appeal to challenge the dismissal order pending the hearing and determination of this appeal. The appellant is now seeking for stay of proceedings vide the motion dated 18. 9.2017. It is the submission of the appellant that unless the order for stay of proceedings is given the counter-claim will be heard and determined without the appellant being heard thus making it suffer substantial loss.
4) The respondents on the other hand have urged this court to find that the motion dated 18. 9.2017 is misconceived, incompetent and without merit. The respondents have further stated that the appellant lost interest to pursue the case after it vacated the respondents premises. The respondents pointed out that the contradictions, inaccuracies and the false statements made in support of the appellant’s application could not warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion to set aside the orders made on 10. 5.2017. This court was beseeched by the respondents to find that the appellant has not given any sufficient reason to warrant stay of the lower court proceedings.
5) In their response to the appellant’s motion, the respondents do 0. not deny the averment that if the order to stay proceedings of the suit before the trial court is not given, they will proceed to prosecute the counter-claim. With respect, I agree with the appellant’s argument that if the respondents are allowed to proceed with the counter-claim, this appeal will be rendered nugatory. The respondents may obtain favourable judgment which they may execute against the appellant before being heard. I am satisfied that it is in the best interest of justice to grant the order sought so that the appellant is not condemned unheard.
6) In the end, I find the motion to be with merit. It is allowed in terms of prayer 3 with costs abiding the outcome of the appeal.
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 8th day of December, 2017.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
.................................................... for the Appellant
................................................. for the Respondent