REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT KIMILILI
MC ELC NO. 097 OF 2025
VERSUS
MUMIA KISABULI …………………….……………… DEFENDANT
VERSUS
ROSE PAULINE NYAMBURA ………………………. RESPONDENT
( Appeal from the Ruling of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kimilili (Hon. W.K. ONKUNYA PM ) dated 28 th May, 2025 in Civil Case No. E009 OF 2025 )
BETWEEN
ROSE PAULINE NYAMBURA …………………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUMIA KISABULI ………………………………….. DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In an application dated 31.7.2025, the applicant seeks the following orders:-
(1) Spent
(2) That pending the hearing of this Application, this Honourable court be pleased to stay the ruling and Orders dated 28 th May, 2025 issued by Hon. W. K Onkunya.
(3) That pending the hearing of this Appeal, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay the ruling and Orders dated 28 th May, 2025 issued by Hon. W. K. Onkunya.
(4) That pending the hearing of this Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay any further proceedings of the Kimilili Magistrate’s court civil Case E009 of 2025;
(5) That pending the hearing of this Appeal, this Honourable court be pleased to stay any further proceeding and/or trial of the Kimilili Magistrates court civil case No. E009 OF 2025.
(6) Costs of this Application be provided for;
2. The Applicant is seeking prayers 3 and 4 to stay a ruling made on the 28.5.2025. The Applicant is relying on his affidavit dated 31.7.2025.
3. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the application plus the applicant’s supporting affidavit. The Respondent did not oppose the application. The Respondent was present in court at the hearing.
4. In considering whether to grant a stay of the Ruling or Order , the court has to consider whether failure to stay the impugned Ruling will prejudice any of the parties. The Court is also required to exercise its discretion, but which discretion must be exercised after due consideration of the merits of the case and the likely effect on the ends of justice. The exercise of discretion must be grounded on judicious principles. Justice Ringera J in Global tours & Travels Limited, Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000 held as follows:“ 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 so, 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 .”
5. In the ruling dated 28.5.2025, the court noted that there was a need to preserve the status quo to maintain peace and equality, and the order made states as follows:-
“ In the end, I find that the Notice of Motion dated 5 th March 2025 is merited and make the following orders;
(a) That an order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendant / Respondent, Servant, agents or anybody else acting through him from making any incitement, holding any meeting with strangers, threats, trespass, intimidation, interference, harassment, or utterances against the Applicant pending the hearing and determination of the suit
(b) That costs of the application be in the cause.
6. Although the status quo order does not specifically state the current status, the order which I have cited above is not a permanent injunction as alleged by the applicant. The order is restraining the respondents, servants , agents or anybody else acting through them from making any incitement, holding any meeting with strangers, threats, trespass, intimidation, interference, harassment, or utterances against the Applicant pending the hearing and determination of the suit
7. I don’t wish to delve further into the matter between the parties as the applicant has duly filed an appeal, which is yet to be determined. The applicant has failed to persuade this court to issue an order of stay of the ruling dated 28.5.2025 and proceedings in Case No. E009/2025 at SPM Kimilili court. The Notice of Motion dated 31.7.2025 lacks merit and is dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
Dated, signed, and delivered at Bungoma on this 3rd day of March 2026.
R.E.OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mumia Kisabuli/ Applicant
Respondent - Absent
Wilkister - C/A
RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 3333
IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT KIMILILI
MC ELC NO. 097 OF 2025
VERSUS
MUMIA KISABULI …………………….……………… DEFENDANT
VERSUS
ROSE PAULINE NYAMBURA ………………………. RESPONDENT
( Appeal from the Ruling of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kimilili (Hon. W.K. ONKUNYA PM ) dated 28 th May, 2025 in Civil Case No. E009 OF 2025 )
BETWEEN
ROSE PAULINE NYAMBURA …………………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUMIA KISABULI ………………………………….. DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In an application dated 31.7.2025, the applicant seeks the following orders:-
(1) Spent
(2) That pending the hearing of this Application, this Honourable court be pleased to stay the ruling and Orders dated 28 th May, 2025 issued by Hon. W. K Onkunya.
(3) That pending the hearing of this Appeal, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay the ruling and Orders dated 28 th May, 2025 issued by Hon. W. K. Onkunya.
(4) That pending the hearing of this Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay any further proceedings of the Kimilili Magistrate’s court civil Case E009 of 2025;
(5) That pending the hearing of this Appeal, this Honourable court be pleased to stay any further proceeding and/or trial of the Kimilili Magistrates court civil case No. E009 OF 2025.
(6) Costs of this Application be provided for;
2. The Applicant is seeking prayers 3 and 4 to stay a ruling made on the 28.5.2025. The Applicant is relying on his affidavit dated 31.7.2025.
3. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the application plus the applicant’s supporting affidavit. The Respondent did not oppose the application. The Respondent was present in court at the hearing.
4. In considering whether to grant a stay of the Ruling or Order , the court has to consider whether failure to stay the impugned Ruling will prejudice any of the parties. The Court is also required to exercise its discretion, but which discretion must be exercised after due consideration of the merits of the case and the likely effect on the ends of justice. The exercise of discretion must be grounded on judicious principles. Justice Ringera J in Global tours & Travels Limited, Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000 held as follows:“ 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 so, 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 .”
5. In the ruling dated 28.5.2025, the court noted that there was a need to preserve the status quo to maintain peace and equality, and the order made states as follows:-
“ In the end, I find that the Notice of Motion dated 5 th March 2025 is merited and make the following orders;
(a) That an order of injunction is hereby issued restraining the Defendant / Respondent, Servant, agents or anybody else acting through him from making any incitement, holding any meeting with strangers, threats, trespass, intimidation, interference, harassment, or utterances against the Applicant pending the hearing and determination of the suit
(b) That costs of the application be in the cause.
6. Although the status quo order does not specifically state the current status, the order which I have cited above is not a permanent injunction as alleged by the applicant. The order is restraining the respondents, servants , agents or anybody else acting through them from making any incitement, holding any meeting with strangers, threats, trespass, intimidation, interference, harassment, or utterances against the Applicant pending the hearing and determination of the suit
7. I don’t wish to delve further into the matter between the parties as the applicant has duly filed an appeal, which is yet to be determined. The applicant has failed to persuade this court to issue an order of stay of the ruling dated 28.5.2025 and proceedings in Case No. E009/2025 at SPM Kimilili court. The Notice of Motion dated 31.7.2025 lacks merit and is dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
Dated, signed, and delivered at Bungoma on this 3rd day of March 2026.
R.E.OUGO
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mumia Kisabuli/ Applicant
Respondent - Absent
Wilkister - C/A
RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 RULING IN HCCA NO. 97 OF 2025 3333