[2017] KEHC 9971 (KLR)
The High Court determined that the interests of justice required a stay of further proceedings before the Industrial Property Tribunal pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The court reasoned that if the tribunal were to proceed and make a determination on the revocation application while its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9971 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Safepak Limited; Respondent: Fineline Industries Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 774 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of proceedings granted.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Revocation of Design, Extension of Time
- 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
Safepak Limited
Appellant
Fineline Industries Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Industrial Property Tribunal had jurisdiction to extend time for filing an application for revocation of a design.
- 2 Whether proceedings before the tribunal should be stayed pending the determination of the appeal challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court determined that the interests of justice required a stay of further proceedings before the Industrial Property Tribunal pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The court reasoned that if the tribunal were to proceed and make a determination on the revocation application while its jurisdiction was under challenge, there was a risk that the proceedings could be rendered a nullity if the appeal succeeded. The court emphasized that it was not making any findings on the merits of the appeal at this stage but was acting to prevent a potential waste of judicial resources and to ensure that the appeal process was meaningful. The court also noted that granting a stay...
Court Disposition
Application for stay of proceedings granted.
Orders
- Proceedings before the Industrial Property Tribunal are stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
- The appeal shall be set down for hearing at the earliest available date.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 774 OF 2016
SAFEPAK LIMITED………...............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
FINELINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED………………….....RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application before me is for the stay of further proceedings before the Industrial Property Tribunal until the appellant’s appeal before this court is heard and determined.
2. In a nutshell, the Tribunal had extended the time for the filing of an application for the revocation of a design.
3. It is the appellant’s contention that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to extend time as it did.
4. If the tribunal were to proceed to hear and determine the revocation proceedings whilst there was an appeal challenging its very jurisdiction in respect to those proceedings, there is a possibility that the tribunal could allow the revocation.
5. If that were to happen, and if thereafter this court were to find that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the entire proceedings before the tribunal would have been in vain.
6. Of course, there is also the possibility that the tribunal could dismiss the revocation proceedings.
7. But even then, if the High Court were to ultimately decide that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction when it extended time for the filing of the revocation proceedings, the decision of the tribunal would be a nullity.
8. At this moment in time, this court is not called upon to determine the merits or otherwise of the appeal. That is a function of the court when it is actually hearing the appeal.
9. At this stage, the court is actually called upon to guard against any mini-trial of the appeal or a pre-determination of the substantive appeal.
10. This court is called upon to only weigh the pros and consof granting or of not granting the order for stay of proceedings pending appeal.
11. If I were to put the tribunal on hold for now, that would not be tantamount to an interference with the exercise of the tribunal’s discretion. I so hold because ultimately I do not know how the appeal may be determined; it may or may not be allowed.
12. I am satisfied that the interests of justice will be served by a stay of further proceedings before the tribunal until the appeal herein was heard and determined.
13. I am equally convinced that justice demands expedition in the determination of the appeal.
14. Consequently, the proceedings before the tribunal will now be stayed. However, this court will also immediately assign an early date for the hearing of the appeal.
15. Finally, the costs of the application shall abide the determination of the appeal. Whichever party succeeds in the appeal will also be awarded the costs of this application.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 31st day of July 2017.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of
A. Jelle for the Appellant
Kuyo for the Respondent
Collins Odhiambo – Court clerk