[2025] KEHC 5385 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5385 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the exercise of its discretion to stay the proceedings in the lower court. The applicants were not direct parties to the declaratory suit and had unsuccessfully sought to be enjoined. The court emphasized the importance of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5385 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Eric Maina Nyabando; Appellant: Anthony Makori Nyamochenga; Respondent: CIC Insurance Co. Limited; Respondent: New Mega (Africa) Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal E011 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
SM Mohochi
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Discretionary Jurisdiction, Access to Justice
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Discretionary Jurisdiction Access to Justice

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Maina Nyabando

Appellant

Anthony Makori Nyamochenga

Appellant

CIC Insurance Co. Limited

Respondent

New Mega (Africa) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of proceedings in Nakuru C. M’s Court Civil Suit No. E242 of 2023 pending the determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion in their favour.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' right to participate in the declaratory suit outweighs the plaintiffs' right to access justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the exercise of its discretion to stay the proceedings in the lower court. The applicants were not direct parties to the declaratory suit and had unsuccessfully sought to be enjoined. The court emphasized the importance of expeditious hearing and disposal of matters, and held that the plaintiffs' right to access justice should not be delayed at the behest of a third party with no direct role in the transaction. The court was not persuaded that the appeal was arguable and concluded that there was no need to stay the proceedings in the lower court. Accordingly, the application for stay was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 1st March, 2024 is dismissed.
  • Costs to the respondents to be in the cause.