Galot Holdings Limited v Manchester Outfitters Limited & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E825 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1597 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to pause the land dispute trial, ruling that Galot Holdings can still appeal later if it loses before the Environment and Land Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has established that its appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the proceedings before the ELC are not stayed pending the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal was arguable
The applicant raised arguable grounds, particularly on the application of the 'any other sufficient reason' ground of review and res-judicata, though arguability does not mean the grounds will succeed.
The Court found the challenge to the learned Judge's revisiting of the directorship delay issue, already rejected by S. Okongo, J., was not frivolous. It stressed that the role at this stage is to ensure arguments are fully heard on merits, not to decide whether they will succeed. The apparent misapplication of the 'any other sufficient reason' ground was also arguable.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay of proceedings was not granted
The applicant failed the nugatory test because the suit had been dismissed for want of prosecution, never heard on merits, and any outcome before the ELC remains reversible on appeal.
The Court reasoned that the claims had received no meritorious determination. If the applicant loses before the ELC, it can still appeal to the Court of Appeal, so it would not suffer irreparable harm. Reliance Bank establishes that reversibility or compensability in damages defeats the nugatory test. Stay of proceedings is a grave intervention to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, which were not shown.
Legal principles established
#- Under Rule 5(2)(b), an applicant for stay of proceedings pending appeal must establish that the appeal is arguable and that it will likely be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted
- A single arguable point suffices to meet the arguability threshold; an arguable appeal is one that is not idle or frivolous
- The power to stay proceedings is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases
- Whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible or, if not, whether damages will reasonably compensate the aggrieved party
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay of proceedings in Nairobi ELC Case No. 358 of 2012 is dismissed
- 2.The applicant to pay the costs of the application to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Nairobi ELC Case No. 358 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings in Nairobi ELC Case No. 358 of 2012 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
The applicant failed to establish that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the proceedings were not stayed; the claims had never been heard on merits and any adverse outcome is reversible on appeal
Costs
Costs follow the event. The applicant pays the costs of the application 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.
Whether this Court is dealing with an application for stay, an application for injunction or an application for stay of proceedings, the applicant has to establish that the appeal is arguable, and that the appeal will likely be rendered nugatory, if stay of the application is not granted and the appeal succeeds
An arguable appeal is one that is not idle or frivolous. A single arguable point is suficient to meet the threshold
the power to stay proceedings which is discretionary, should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the proceedings are shown to be frivolous, vexatious, where they are manifestly groundless or lastly where it is clearly shown that there is no cause of action.
We consequently find that the applicant has failed to establish that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the proceedings before the ELC are not stayed. We dismiss the application.
Costs follow the event. We order that the applicant pays the costs of the application to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently describes the earlier dismissal as for want of prosecution in paragraph 1 but refers to the Judge having 'dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction' in paragraph 6, and later confirms dismissal for want of prosecution
The judgment states 'We do not want to point out that whether or not the learned Judge misapplied the principle of "any other suficient" to the facts of the application would be another arguable ground', an apparently self-contradictory formulation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Galot Holdings Limited v Manchester Outfitters Limited & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E825 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1597 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. COACA/E825/2024 (application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1597/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.