Shelmith Ngure (Legal Officer) for the Applicant (Insurer) v Respondent
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court refused to pause injury lawsuits against a driver just because his insurer was disputing coverage in a separate case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether stay of the Molo magistrate court suits should issue pending the insurer's disclaimer suit
Application dismissed; the disclaimer dispute is between insurer and insured and does not warrant staying the plaintiffs' suits against the insured.
The court applied Halsbury's test that stay of proceedings is a grave interruption to be exercised sparingly and only where the proceedings could not possibly succeed. The Molo suits raise issues between the plaintiffs and the insured respondent, are yet to be heard, and the insurer's cover dispute does not affect them. Staying them would prejudice the plaintiffs and hamper expeditious access to justice.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of proceedings is a serious interruption of a party's right to litigate and should be imposed only sparingly and in exceptional cases.
- The pendency of a disclaimer suit between insurer and insured is not a ground to stay third-party injury suits against the insured.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th July, 2024 be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The costs shall be in this cause.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A Civil Procedure Act; Order 22 Rule 5, Order 34 Rule 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shelmith Ngure (Legal Officer) for the Applicant (Insurer) v Respondent", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 11th July, 2024 (Disclaimer Suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.