Rooftg Pacific Limited v Space & Style Limited

5. The plaintiff filed grounds of opposition dated 20 February 2026, but filed on 18 March 2026, outside the timelines directed by the Court. The same having been filed late will therefore not be considered in determining the current application. 6. In support of the application, the Applicant filed submissions dated 1 December 2025, arguing that the intended appeal raises substantial issues on jurisdiction, and that unless proceedings are stayed, the appeal will be rendered nugatory. 7. No submissions were filed on behalf of the Respondent. Analysis and Determination 8. I have considered the application, the grounds of opposition, and the Defendant’s submissions on record. 9. The principles governing the grant of a stay of proceedings are well settled. In Global Tours & Travels Limited v Five Continents Travel Limited [2015] KECA 789 (KLR), the Court of Appeal emphasized that the power to grant a stay of proceedings is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly, in the interests of justice, and only in clear and exceptional circumstances. The Court (Ringera J) stated that: “ As I understand the law, 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.” 10. Similarly, in Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei [2019] KEHC 10478 (KLR), the court reaffirmed the position in the Global Tours & Travels Limited (supra) case, asserting that stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation since it restricts a party’s right of access to justice, right to be heard without delay and overall, right to fair trial. 11. The principles arising from the above cases are that stay of proceedings is a discretionary remedy, to be exercised sparingly and only in clear and compelling circumstances, because it denies a party the right to have their case heard and delays the administration of justice. 12. As cited by the Applicant, the test in Global Tours & Travel Ltd requires the Court to consider whether a stay is in the interests of justice, taking into account: i. expeditious disposal of cases; ii. prima facie arguability of the intended appeal (without determining prospects of success); iii. optimal use of judicial time; and iv. whether the application was made expeditiously. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4146/eng@2026-03-19 2

page 2 of 4

13. In the present case, even accepting that the intended appeal raises an arguable point on jurisdiction, arguability alone does not automatically warrant a stay. The Applicant must additionally demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if proceedings continue. 14. As to whether the intended appeal risks being rendered nugatory, the Applicant argued that if the matter proceeds and the appeal later succeeds, the proceedings will be a nullity. However, this position assumes that the mere continuation of proceedings necessarily prejudices the Applicant. That assumption is neither self‑evident nor absolute. Courts routinely proceed with matters even as jurisdictional appeals are pursued, unless compelling prejudice is demonstrated. 15. Here, the Applicant has not shown any specific prejudice that goes beyond the ordinary inconvenience of continuing with litigation. The assertion that judicial time may be wasted is speculative and insufficient. Judicial time is safeguarded through proper case management, and not by freezing proceedings each time a party expresses dissatisfaction with an interlocutory finding. 16. The demands of justice require that the Court must balance the Applicant’s right to pursue an appeal with the Respondent’s right to expeditious disposal of its claim. 17. The underlying suit is ready to proceed to Pre‑Trial Conference, and the Respondent should not be denied progress in its case on the basis of a jurisdictional point that has already been determined by this Court, unless exceptional circumstances exist. 18. No material has been placed before this Court demonstrating that the Respondent will not suffer prejudice from delay. Conversely, any suspension of proceedings at this stage directly undermines the efficiency of this Court, whose mandate is to ensure timely resolution of commercial disputes. 19. The existence of a related constitutional petition does not justify halting this suit. The Applicant itself concedes that the issues in the petition are distinct, and the mere coexistence of multiple proceedings involving the same parties is not by itself a basis for staying a commercial trial. 20. While the Court agrees with the Applicant’s submissions that the application was brought promptly after delivery of the ruling, promptness alone does not cure the Applicant’s failure to satisfy the other essential elements of the test. 21. In the premises, the Court finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if proceedings continue, nor has it shown that the interests of justice tilt in favour of granting a stay. 22. The upshot of the foregoing is that the Notice of Motion dated 14 July 2025 is hereby dismissed. 23. There shall be no order as to costs, the Respondent having failed to file any response or submissions in opposition to the application. 24. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBITHIS 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 HON. JUSTICE MOSES ADO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT In the presence of: C/A – Moses Ms. Kitptum h/b for Kahura - for the Plaintiff/Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4146/eng@2026-03-19 3

page 3 of 4

Kiama - for the Defendant/Applicant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/4146/eng@2026-03-19 4

page 4 of 4