'R U L I N G
Teresia Njeri Njoka, Margaret Damat, Lucy Wanjiru Njoka and Joseph Njuguna Njoka the legal representatives of the estate of Philip Njoka Kamau (Deceased) have come to court seeking orders that Pending the hearing and determination of this application, and of the Intended Appeal, there be a Stay of Proceedings herein and a Stay for Arrest of the pending Judgment and final determination on the substantive Motion dated 16th March 2022. That costs of this application be in the cause of the intended Appeal.
The application is based on grounds that the Interested Parties/Applicants are aggrieved by this court''s Ruling dated 2nd October 2025, which locked out the Applicants/Estate of Phillip Njoka (Deceased) from being heard or participating herein, though the dispute is about the Deceased''s land. This has occasioned great prejudice to the Applicants and to the said Deceased''s Estate, who now stand to be condemned unheard, contrary to Rules of Natural Justice.
Hearing of the substantive Motion proceeded in the absence of and without service or involvement of the Estate of Phillip Njoka Kamau (Deceased). The matter is now pending for Judgment, which could be delivered any time. It was initially slated for delivery on 17th December 2024, before it was temporarily arrested by this court
The Ex Parte Applicant herein, though she is one of the four Administrators of the aforesaid Deceased''s Estate, she is in law not competent to alone represent the deceased’s Estate herein, seeing as the Grant of Letters of Administration is issued jointly to all four Administrators, and they must by law at all times act together in the execution of their legal mandate thereunder. None of them can competently act alone.
On 30th October 2025, this court made an order that the applicant do file and serve a supplementary affidavit with submissions within 7 days and that the respondents do file their submissions withi 7 days of service. This order has not been complied with.
This court observes that to stay or not stay proceedings is a discretion on the part of the judge and ought to be exercised judiciously and on sound grounds and sense. It is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right of parties to be heard expeditiously. In William Odhiambo Ramogi & Others v A.G. & Other, Muslim for Human Rights and Others (IP) [2020] eKLR, and Kenya Shell Ltd v Kibiru & Another [1986] eKLR the courts have enumerated the principles to consider as follows:-
(1)If there is a pending appeal in the higher court.
(2)The Applicant should explain why a stay has not been sought in the higher court since the policy is to move to the said court, which is better placed to calibrate its orders.
(3)There must be a demonstration that the appeal raises substantial questions to be determined or is otherwise arguable.
(4)There must be a demonstration of the appeal being rendered nugatory.
(5)Exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated which make the stay of proceedings warranted as opposed to hearing the case concluded safely and all arising grievances taken up on a single appeal.
(6)The Applicant must demonstrate that the application was filed expeditiously and without delay.
I have considered the application and do find the same has been filed timeously however, the same is an abuse of court process because Lucy Wanjiru Njoka, being one of the appellants and the exparte applicant cannot make an application to stay proceedings that she has commenced. It appears to be an attempt to convolute the dispute and if possible stall the hearing of the same. The other applicants are all legal representatives of the estate of Philip Njoka Kamau who are represented by Lucy Wanjiru Njoka in this matter as the exparte applicant and therefore will suffer no prejudice if the matter proceeds for hearing as Lucy Wanjiru Njoka will represent the estate and will be heard. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated that make the stay of proceedings warranted as opposed to hearing the case concluded safely and all arising grievances taken up on a single appeal. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
'
Teresia Njeri Njoka, Margaret Damat, Lucy Wanjiru Njoka and Joseph Njuguna Njoka the legal representatives of the estate of Philip Njoka Kamau (Deceased) have come to court seeking orders that Pending the hearing and determination of this application, and of the Intended Appeal, there be a Stay of Proceedings herein and a Stay for Arrest of the pending Judgment and final determination on the substantive Motion dated 16th March 2022. That costs of this application be in the cause of the intended Appeal.
The application is based on grounds that the Interested Parties/Applicants are aggrieved by this court''s Ruling dated 2nd October 2025, which locked out the Applicants/Estate of Phillip Njoka (Deceased) from being heard or participating herein, though the dispute is about the Deceased''s land. This has occasioned great prejudice to the Applicants and to the said Deceased''s Estate, who now stand to be condemned unheard, contrary to Rules of Natural Justice.
Hearing of the substantive Motion proceeded in the absence of and without service or involvement of the Estate of Phillip Njoka Kamau (Deceased). The matter is now pending for Judgment, which could be delivered any time. It was initially slated for delivery on 17th December 2024, before it was temporarily arrested by this court
The Ex Parte Applicant herein, though she is one of the four Administrators of the aforesaid Deceased''s Estate, she is in law not competent to alone represent the deceased’s Estate herein, seeing as the Grant of Letters of Administration is issued jointly to all four Administrators, and they must by law at all times act together in the execution of their legal mandate thereunder. None of them can competently act alone.
On 30th October 2025, this court made an order that the applicant do file and serve a supplementary affidavit with submissions within 7 days and that the respondents do file their submissions withi 7 days of service. This order has not been complied with.
This court observes that to stay or not stay proceedings is a discretion on the part of the judge and ought to be exercised judiciously and on sound grounds and sense. It is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right of parties to be heard expeditiously. In William Odhiambo Ramogi & Others v A.G. & Other, Muslim for Human Rights and Others (IP) [2020] eKLR, and Kenya Shell Ltd v Kibiru & Another [1986] eKLR the courts have enumerated the principles to consider as follows:-
(1)If there is a pending appeal in the higher court.
(2)The Applicant should explain why a stay has not been sought in the higher court since the policy is to move to the said court, which is better placed to calibrate its orders.
(3)There must be a demonstration that the appeal raises substantial questions to be determined or is otherwise arguable.
(4)There must be a demonstration of the appeal being rendered nugatory.
(5)Exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated which make the stay of proceedings warranted as opposed to hearing the case concluded safely and all arising grievances taken up on a single appeal.
(6)The Applicant must demonstrate that the application was filed expeditiously and without delay.
I have considered the application and do find the same has been filed timeously however, the same is an abuse of court process because Lucy Wanjiru Njoka, being one of the appellants and the exparte applicant cannot make an application to stay proceedings that she has commenced. It appears to be an attempt to convolute the dispute and if possible stall the hearing of the same. The other applicants are all legal representatives of the estate of Philip Njoka Kamau who are represented by Lucy Wanjiru Njoka in this matter as the exparte applicant and therefore will suffer no prejudice if the matter proceeds for hearing as Lucy Wanjiru Njoka will represent the estate and will be heard. No exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated that make the stay of proceedings warranted as opposed to hearing the case concluded safely and all arising grievances taken up on a single appeal. The application lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
'