Aloo v Ouma & others (Civil Appeal E062 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 19398 (KLR) (Appeals) (19 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 19398 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) APPEALS CIVIL APPEAL E062 OF 2025 WA OKWANY, J NOVEMBER 19, 2025 BETWEEN CHARLES MUGA ALOO ....................................................................... APPELLANT AND OMONDI BENARD OUMA & OTHERS ......................................... RESPONDENT RULING 1. I have carefully considered the rival arguments made by counsel for the parties herein on the singular issue of whether at this interlocutory stage, this court should issue interim/temporary orders of stay of proceedings before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) pending the interparties hearing of the application. 2. Courts in Kenya have repeatedly stressed that stay of proceedings is much more drastic than stay of execution because it interferes with the Constitutional Right to a timely hearing and expeditious disposal of suits. 3. Indeed, Order 42 rule 6 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules is specific that an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution of proceedings but the court appealed from May for sufficient cause order stay on terms it deems first. 4. In Re Global Tours & Travel Ltd (Nairobi Winding Up Case No 43 of 2000) it was held that whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings is a matter of discretion to be exercised in the interest of justice. In the said case, the court added that in determining the issue of interest of justice, facts such as the need for expeditious disposal of cases, arguability of the appeal, scarcity and optimal case of judicial time and whether the application was brought expeditiously should be considered. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19398/eng@2025-11-19 1
page 1 of 2
5. In William Odhiambo Romogi & 3 others v AG & 4 others, Muhuri & 2 others [2020] eKLR the court synthesized the key principles governing the granting of orders of stay of proceedings which can be summarized as follows: 1. There must be a pending appeal. 2. The stay is sought in the proper court 3. Appeal raises substantial questions or is otherwise arguable. 4. The appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused. 5. There must be exceptional circumstances justifying a pause in proceedings rather than letting the case conclude before appealing once. 6. The application must be brought expeditiously and without delay. Applying the above 6 principles to the instant case, I find that the application satisfies the first 3 principles, namely; that there is a pending appeal, before this court and that the appeal raises substantial questions of law i.e jurisdiction. 6. I however, find that the applicant has not demonstrated that the said appeal will be rendered nugatory unless the proceedings before the PPDT are stayed. The applicant has also not demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances warranting a pause in proceedings before the PPDT and most importantly, the application was not brought expeditiously without delay considering the strict timelines available to the PPDT to determine the disputes. It is instructive to note that the impugned Ruling of the PPDT was rendered on 3rd November 2025 and the instant application filed 2 weeks later on 17th November 2025 when the hearing in proceedings sought to be stayed is slated for tomorrow 20th November 2025. For the reasons that I have stayed in this Ruling, I am not satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for the granting of the orders for interim stay of proceedings and I therefore, decline to grant the prayers for the same. 7. This court is alive to the fact that the Applicant will still be able to challenge the outcome of the case before the PPDT at once after the end of the case. 8. I will issue directions for the hearing of the application appeal after the conclusion of the case before the PPDT. 9. Mention before the Deputy Registrar, Hon. C Okumu, on 16th December 2025. DATED, DELIVERED ON THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025. HON. W. A. OKWANY JUDGE For Appellant - Oduor. For 1st & 2nd Respondents - Seko. For 4th -8th Respondents - Makori. Court Assistant - Ubah. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19398/eng@2025-11-19 2
page 2 of 2