Automated Summary
Key Facts
Saptet Farm Company Limited (plaintiff) sought to stay proceedings in its ongoing dispute with SK Soi Company Limited (defendant) pending an appeal against a 2024 ruling dismissing its earlier application to set aside a 2023 dismissal of its suit for want of prosecution. The Environment & Land Court at Kericho ruled on 27 February 2025 that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, noting the case had been pending for over 17 years and the plaintiff’s appeal was not shown to be arguable. The court dismissed the stay application with costs, allowing the defendant’s counterclaim to proceed.
Transaction Type
Land dispute involving eviction and counterclaims over property transfer and damages.
Issues
The primary issue for determination was whether the Environment and Land Court should grant a stay of proceedings in the case pending the hearing and determination of the Plaintiff/Applicant's appeal against the dismissal of its suit. The Plaintiff argued that its appeal raises substantial questions about its right to a fair hearing and access to justice, while the Defendant contended that the Plaintiff's actions were obstructive and that a stay would prejudice the Defendant's right to a timely resolution after over seventeen years of litigation.
Holdings
The court dismissed the Plaintiff/Applicant's application for stay of proceedings as it failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting such an order. The application was found to lack merit and was dismissed with costs.
Remedies
- The court ordered that the Plaintiff/Applicant pay the Defendant/Respondent's costs.
- The court dismissed the Plaintiff/Applicant's application for stay of proceedings pending appeal.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that a stay of proceedings must be exercised sparingly, requiring the applicant to demonstrate an arguable appeal and exceptional circumstances to avoid prejudicing the other party's right to a timely hearing. This aligns with judicial decisions like Port Florence Community Health Care v Crown Health Care Limited [2022] eKLR and Turbo Highway Eldoret Ltd v Muni [2022] KEHC 10197 (KLR), which stress that an appeal need not be guaranteed success but must not be frivolous. The court also noted that proceedings should not be stayed unless there is unquestionable evidence the case should not continue, as per Halsbury's Law and the Civil Procedure Rules.
Precedent Name
- William Odhiambo Ramogi & 3 Others v Attorney General & 6 Others; Muslims for Human Rights & 2 Others
- David Akongo Obilo v Dipen Hasmukhlal Faldu
- Stanley Kinyanjui vs Tony Ketter & 5 Others
- Re Global Tours & Travel Ltd
- University of Nairobi v Ricatti Business of East Africa
- Kenya Wildlife Service vs James Mutembei
- Port Florence Community Health Care v Crown Health Care Limited
- Turbo Highway Eldoret Ltd v Muniu
- Ronald Mackenzie v Damaris Kiarie
- Muchanga Investments Limited vs Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Act
- Constitution of Kenya
- Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
L. A. Omollo
Passage Text
- In Turbo Highway Eldoret Ltd v Muniu (supra) the Court observed that an appeal will not be rendered nugatory by the mere fact that the trial may proceed and a judgment on merits given. It further observed that an Applicant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting stay of proceedings.
- 74. Other than the Plaintiff/Applicant contending that its appeal would be rendered nugatory because this court may proceed to hear and determine the Defendant/Respondent's counterclaim, which contention does not warrant the grant of an order of stay of proceedings, the Plaintiff/Applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant this Court to grant orders of stay of proceedings.
- The question of whether or not to grant an order for stay of proceedings is a discretionary one. This discretionary power must be exercised judiciously. The Court has to consider if it will be in the interests of justice to grant the same. The underlying interest ought to be that the appeal should not be rendered nugatory.
Damages / Relief Type
- Refund of all the rents received from 30th June, 2004, at a rate of Kshs. 58,500/= per month till the date, month and year when the refund is made in full.
- General Damages for breach of contract payable with interest at commercial rates.