1. I have considered the Noticer of Motion application dated 24th March 2026 together with the supporting affidavit sworn on even date and the replying affidavit sworn on 11th June 20226 in opposition to the same.
2. The applicant seeks a stay of proceedings in the lower court. The application arises in relation to maintenance of a minor, which the applicant states he is financially unable to meet.
3. The applicant stated that his salary cannot support the award made in the lower court.
4. The respondent on its part stipulated that there is no proof of the allegations made by the applicant, and that the ruling of the lower court stands. Counsel stated that the ruling has not been reversed and remains an order of the court. The applicant therefore remains duty bound to make payment in accordance with the ruling of the lower court. And that, this matter is the subject of proceedings before the lower court.
5. I note that the applicable law to stay of proceedings was articulated in the following terms in decision of Kenya Wildlife Service Vs James Mutembei (2019) eKLR, by Gikonyo J as follows:
“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.”
It will be exercised where the proceedings are shown to be frivolous, vexatious or harassing or to be manifestly groundless or in which there is clearly no cause of action in law or in equity. The applicant for a stay on this ground must show not merely that the plaintiff might not, or probably would not, succeed but that he could not possibly succeed on the basis of the pleading and the facts of the case”.
6. This is a discretionary power exercisable by the court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. Having considered reasons provided by counsel and the law in relation to the above application, I am satisfied that the application is without merit.
8. The material before the court shows that the applicant’s previous application for a stay of execution was dismissed by the lower court and this forms the basis of the present stay.
9. There is also a ruling in place in the lower court, and the proceedings before the lower court are lawful, and are being conducted in accordance with the appropriate process. The decision of the lower court to supervise its orders and enforce the same is not a justification to grant a stay of proceedings.
10. I am therefore not persuaded that this is the proper basis up on which such an order for stay of proceedings should issue. The application is dismissed with costs.
2. The applicant seeks a stay of proceedings in the lower court. The application arises in relation to maintenance of a minor, which the applicant states he is financially unable to meet.
3. The applicant stated that his salary cannot support the award made in the lower court.
4. The respondent on its part stipulated that there is no proof of the allegations made by the applicant, and that the ruling of the lower court stands. Counsel stated that the ruling has not been reversed and remains an order of the court. The applicant therefore remains duty bound to make payment in accordance with the ruling of the lower court. And that, this matter is the subject of proceedings before the lower court.
5. I note that the applicable law to stay of proceedings was articulated in the following terms in decision of Kenya Wildlife Service Vs James Mutembei (2019) eKLR, by Gikonyo J as follows:
“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.”
It will be exercised where the proceedings are shown to be frivolous, vexatious or harassing or to be manifestly groundless or in which there is clearly no cause of action in law or in equity. The applicant for a stay on this ground must show not merely that the plaintiff might not, or probably would not, succeed but that he could not possibly succeed on the basis of the pleading and the facts of the case”.
6. This is a discretionary power exercisable by the court upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. Having considered reasons provided by counsel and the law in relation to the above application, I am satisfied that the application is without merit.
8. The material before the court shows that the applicant’s previous application for a stay of execution was dismissed by the lower court and this forms the basis of the present stay.
9. There is also a ruling in place in the lower court, and the proceedings before the lower court are lawful, and are being conducted in accordance with the appropriate process. The decision of the lower court to supervise its orders and enforce the same is not a justification to grant a stay of proceedings.
10. I am therefore not persuaded that this is the proper basis up on which such an order for stay of proceedings should issue. The application is dismissed with costs.