Guo v Beijing Zhongi Intergrated Housing technolgy Co ltd & 2 others (Cause E328 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 999 (KLR)

The Respondents relied on the Court of Appeal test in Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd v Athumani that a pending or intended appeal must be arguable and rendered nugatory absent stay, considered conjunctively. The Claimant countered with Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei, stressing that stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action interfering with access to justice and that the test is high and stringent. The Court noted the appeal questioned its jurisdiction, which ordinarily requires it to down its pen, but balanced this against the Respondents' failure to comply with orders to deposit Kshs 50,000,000 or furnish a bank guarantee, and the resulting interdiction from dealing with a named property. The Court concluded the Respondents were not deserving of the discretionary relief.

The Court accepted that the pending appeal before the Court of Appeal questioned the ELRC's jurisdiction and that 'where a Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, it must down its pen.' It further noted that legal prudence would have required it to hold back its pen pending the Court of Appeal's determination. However, the Court was being asked to exercise a discretion in the interests of justice, and the Respondents' record of non-compliance with orders (failure to deposit security or provide a bank guarantee, prompting an interdiction on dealing with property) meant they were not deserving of that discretion. The Motion for stay of proceedings was therefore dismissed.