Susan Kathua Nyaga v Simon Maina Wanjohi

3. By the time of the hearing, the court found that the issue of liability had already been settled through SPMCCC E050 of 2022. The test suit was determined on 17th July 2025 and the other suits in the series were scheduled for hearing on 31st July 2025. It is with this background that the applicant moved the court through this application to have the proceedings in the said suit stayed pending determination of the appeal herein. Replying Afidavit 4. In the replying affidavit, the respondent stated that the court had already stayed proceedings in the named suits for 60 days from the date of the application. That the plaintiffs in Siakago SPMCCC E029, E030, E031, E032, E033, E034, E035 and E064 of 2022 are not parties to the appeal herein hence the orders sought are incapable of being granted. That the application is an abuse of the court process and it ought to be dismissed with costs. He also stated that the applicant had failed to comply with the order of the court to deposit 75% of the decretal amount as security for stay of execution. That the orders sought herein are meant to delay him from enjoying the fruits of his judgment. Parties’ Submissions on the application 5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions as directed. 6. The applicant submitted that without the order for stay of proceedings, the appeal will be rendered nugatory since the subject of the appeal is the trial court’s finding on liability. That the circumstances of the case warrant granting of an order for stay of proceedings in the named cases. These requirements were discussed in the cases of Ramogi & 2 others v Attorney General & 3 others; Muslims for Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2018] KEHC 9718 (KLR) and Pacis Insurance Company Limited v Ichanga [2022] KEHC 16303 (KLR) which she relied on. 7. In his submissions, the respondent rehashed the averments made in the replying affidavit. He added that he was enjoined in Siakago SPMCCC E029, E030, E031, E032, E033, E034, E035 and E064 of 2022 as a third party from whom the applicant claimed contribution on the issue of liability. He insisted that the application seeks orders against persons who are not parties to the present suit. Issue for determination 8. The issue for determination is whether the application has merit. Analysis and Determination 9. Stay of proceedings is a discretionary relief that the court may grant if it is in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the appeal seeks to challenge, inter alia, the finding of the trial court on liability. The trial court intends to apply its finding on liability of 100% against the applicant to the other cases filed by other victims from the same accident in Siakago SPMCCC E029, E030, E031, E032, E033, E034, E035 and E064 of 2022. 10. In Pacis Insurance Company Limited v Ichanga (supra), the court stated thus: “ LJ Githua in Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited vs. Esther Wanjiru Wokabi [2014] eKLR stated: “…the courts discretion in deciding whether or not to grant stay of proceedings as sought in this application must be guided by any of the following three main principles; https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1223/eng@2026-01-27 2

page 2 of 3

a) Whether the applicant has established that he/she has a prima facie arguable case; b) Whether the application was filed expeditiously; and c) Whether the applicant has established sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the court that it is in the interest of justice to grant the orders sought.” Ringera J. (as he then was) in Global Tours &Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000 stated thus; “ ….whether or not to grant a stay of proceedings or further proceedings on a decree or order appealed from is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised in the interest of Justice .... the sole question is whether it is in the interest of justice to order a stay of proceedings and if it is, on what terms it should be granted. In deciding whether to order a stay, the court should essentially weigh the pros and cons of granting or not granting the order. And in considering those matters, it should bear in mind such factors as the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the prima facie merits of the intended appeal, in the sense of not whether it will probably succeed or not but whether it is an arguable one, the scarcity and optimum utilization of judicial time and whether the application has been brought expeditiously”. According to the Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition. Vol. 37 page 330 and 332, “The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case, and therefore the court’s general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceeding beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.” This is a power which, it has been emphasized, ought to be exercised sparingly, and only in exceptional cases.” 11. When the appeal before this court is heard and determined, the outcome of the same will have a direct effect on the finding of liability in the Siakago SPMCCC E029, E030, E031, E032, E033, E034, E035 and E064 of 2022. These suits are ongoing. Therefore, all factors considered, and in the interest of saving precious judicial time, it is prudent to stay the proceedings therein. I so find. Disposition 12. Ultimately, the application succeeds. Prayer (3) of the application is hereby granted as prayed. Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant. 13. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT EMBU HIGH COURT THIS 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026, PURSUANT TO NOTICE ISSUED ON 27TH JANUARY, 2026 AS TO ELECTRONIC DELIVERY. R. MWONGO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/1223/eng@2026-01-27 3

page 3 of 3