[2021] KECA 860 (KLR)
The Court found that the application for stay of proceedings was not merited because the defence hearing in the main suit had already commenced, rendering the application moot and overtaken by events. The Court further noted that the applicant had filed multiple similar applications seeking the same relief, which...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECA 860 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Shami Despal Wadhwa (as legal representative of the Estate of Deshpal Omprakash Wadhwa); Respondent: Habib Abu Mohamed; Respondent: Abdalla Mwaringa Maye; Respondent: Ibrahim Mukhtar Abasheikh; Respondent: Tauhida Tahir Sheikh; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal (Application) 33 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- J Karanja
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Proceedings, Expunging Documents, Leave to File Documents, Abuse of Process
- 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
Shami Despal Wadhwa (as legal representative of the Estate of Deshpal Omprakash Wadhwa)
Applicant
Habib Abu Mohamed
Respondent
Abdalla Mwaringa Maye
Respondent
Ibrahim Mukhtar Abasheikh
Respondent
Tauhida Tahir Sheikh
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for stay of proceedings is merited in light of previous similar applications and the current stage of the main suit.
- 2 Whether granting the stay would serve any practical purpose given that the defence hearing was already underway.
- 3 Whether the applicant is abusing the process of the court by filing multiple similar applications.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the application for stay of proceedings was not merited because the defence hearing in the main suit had already commenced, rendering the application moot and overtaken by events. The Court further noted that the applicant had filed multiple similar applications seeking the same relief, which constituted an abuse of the court process. As a result, the Court dismissed the application, holding that granting the stay would serve no practical purpose and would not advance the interests of justice.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of proceedings is dismissed.
- Costs shall be in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT MALINDI
(CORAM: OUKO, (P), KARANJA & GATEMBU, JJ. A.)
CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 33 OF 2019
BETWEEN
SHAMI DESPAL WADHWA
(as legal representative of the Estate of .
DESHPAL OMPRAKASH WADHWA) .................................. APPLICANT
AND
1. HABIB ABU MOHAMED ..........................................1STRESPONDENT
2. ABDALLA MWARINGA MAYE ................................2NDRESPONDENT
3. IBRAHIM MUKHTAR ABASHEIKH ........................3RDRESPONDENT
4. TAUHIDA TAHIR SHEIKH ........................................4THRESPONDENT
5. ATTORNEY GENERAL...............................................5THRESPONDENT
(Being an application for orders staying the further hearing of the main suit and all further proceedings
in
Malindi E.L.C. No. 51 of 2012)
**********
RULING OF THE COURT
On 5th February, 2019 Olola, J. expunged the applicant’s additional list of documents which was filed, without leave of the court on 31st January, 2019 in E.L.C No. 51 of 2012.
Aggrieved by the decision, the applicant filed this appeal and has sought, in the meantime, by the motion dated 5th April, 2019, an order to stay further proceedings in the aforementioned suit.
In particular, the applicant depones that if the defence is heard on 11th April, 2019, as scheduled, he will have been locked out of the proceedings. He believed that the expunged list contained crucial documentary evidence which would aid his case; and that should the defence hearing proceed without such evidence, this appeal would be rendered nugatory.
Apparently, after his list of documents was expunged, the applicant, by an application dated 6th March, 2019 in the said suit prayed for leave to file the very list of documents that had been expunged, to re-open his case which had been closed on 5th February, 2019, and to recall one witness.
However, the learned Judge on 15th October, 2019 dispensed with the hearing of the said application to pave way for the defence hearing which had been moved to 21st November, 2019. The applicant was not happy with that outcome and filed another motion, Civil Application No. 101 of 2019, dated 10th May, 2019 before this Court to stay the defence hearing. He subsequently lodged Civil Appeal No. 148 of 2019 to challenge the decision.
The aforementioned motion was heard and determined by this Court on 24th April, 2020. The Court observed that the motion had been overtaken by events since by the time it came up for hearing the defence hearing was already underway.
As the current motion similarly seeks to prevent the commencement of the very defence hearing, which was found to have been overtaken by events, it is equally idle and to grant the prayers in the application will serve no practicalpurpose. We think, from the numerous applications the applicant has brought, that he is abusing the process of the court.
In the result, finding no substance in the motion, we dismiss it.
Costs shall be in the appeal.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 19thday of March, 2021.
W. OUKO, (P)
……………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
W. KARANJA
………………….…………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. GATEMBU KAIRU, (FCIArb)
……………………………..…
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR