Water Resources Management Authority v Kensalt Limited [2018] KEELC 4502 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court paused its Kshs 270 million water charges case against salt manufacturer Kensalt until the Supreme Court decides the key legal questions.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Applicability of Order 42 Rule 6 to stay of proceedings
Order 42 Rule 6 does not govern stay of proceedings; it applies only to stay of execution of decrees pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court nonetheless had jurisdiction on other grounds.
The Judge examined Order 42 Rule 6 and concluded its conditions were designed for stay of execution of decrees or orders pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. Since what the Defendant sought was a stay of proceedings pending a Supreme Court petition, the Rule did not strictly apply, but the court's inherent power to control its own case flow and the interest of justice provided the proper basis for jurisdiction.
Whether the Defendant should have gone to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court
Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules cannot be invoked against the Court of Appeal's own decision pending a Supreme Court appeal; the Defendant's resort to the High Court was permissible notwithstanding its right to apply to the Supreme Court for a stay.
Relying on Dickson Muricho Muriuki, the court noted the Court of Appeal has no power under Rule 5(2)(b) to stay its own judgment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The fact that a stay could also be sought in the Supreme Court did not preclude the application before the High Court, which was seized of the proceedings and retained inherent discretion in the interest of justice.
Whether a stay should be granted in the interest of justice
A stay was warranted because the Supreme Court petition would resolve overlapping issues of locus standi and jurisdiction decisive of the suit, conserving judicial resources and avoiding futile proceedings.
Guided by Ringera J's principles in Global Tours & Travels, the court weighed expeditious disposal, arguability of the appeal and judicial economy. Given the substantial overlap between the issues before the Supreme Court (locus standi, jurisdiction over sea water use charges) and this suit, a stay was the most efficient and just course, since the Supreme Court's outcome may well be final on this matter.
Legal principles established
#- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies only to stay of execution of a decree or order pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, not to stay of proceedings.
- The discretion to stay proceedings is incidental to the inherent power of every court to control the disposition of cases before it, and a party may apply to the High Court for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to the Supreme Court even though a parallel application to the Supreme Court is available.
- In deciding whether to stay proceedings the court weighs the pros and cons, including expeditious disposal, the arguability of the intended appeal, judicial economy and expedition of the application.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of all proceedings in the suit pending the hearing and determination of Supreme Court Petition No. 9 of 2016 (Kensalt Limited and Water Resources Management Authority)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules; inherent power of the court to control the disposition of cases before it
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Water Resources Management Authority v Kensalt Limited [2018] KEELC 4502 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Malindi Civil Suit (original WRMA Suit filed 21st November 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4502/eng@2018-02-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.