SAMKEN LIMITED vs BONIFACE KAGUO MWANGI & ANOTHER [1998] KECA 248 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause a trial pending appeal because the company still had a counter-claim to defend, so nothing would be lost.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether proceedings in HCCC 517 of 1990 should be stayed pending the disposal of the applicant's appeal
- 2.Whether the applicant would suffer prejudice, or the appeal be rendered nugatory, if the stay were refused
Key legal issues
#Whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending an appeal where the suit was dismissed for non-attendance of witnesses
The application was refused because the applicant could not demonstrate prejudice: the counter-claim in the suit still had to be defended, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory if the proceedings continued.
The applicant sought a stay of the trial proceedings until its appeal against the dismissal of its suit under Order 9B r 4 was heard, arguing the appeal would be rendered nugatory and it would suffer great prejudice. The court held that all was not lost for the applicant even without a stay, since the counter-claim remained to be defended, and declined to comment on the merits of the pending appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A stay of proceedings pending appeal will be refused where the applicant will not be prejudiced by the continuation of the proceedings, for example where a counter-claim remains to be defended, so the appeal cannot be rendered nugatory.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay of proceedings is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 517 of 1990
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to stay proceedings in the court below pending an intended appeal (rule 5(2)(b) jurisdiction under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, as invoked in an application for stay of proceedings)
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings in HCCC 517 of 1990 pending the disposal of the applicant's appeal
The applicant would not be prejudiced because a counter-claim remains to be defended, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Moreover, there is a counter-claim to be defended and we do not see how the applicant will be prejudiced if we decline to grant this application. We refuse it. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.
As the appeal is pending we will not say anything on it at this stage.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "SAMKEN LIMITED vs BONIFACE KAGUO MWANGI & ANOTHER [1998] KECA 248 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Civil Application No. Nai. 238 of 1998 (95/98 UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/248/eng@1998-10-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.