1. Before Court is the 1st Third Party/Applicant’s Motion application dated 11th December, 2025, brought pursuant to Sections lA, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Rule 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules. The Applicant seeks orders THAT: -
i. Spent.
ii. Spent
iii. Pending hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. E974 of 2025 filed by the 1st Third Party against the Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on 3rd October 2025, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in this matter.
iv. The Costs of the application be in the cause.
2. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the Motion and the affidavit of Mercy K. Wambugu, sworn on 11th December, 2025.
3. The Applicant states that on 3rd October 2025, this Court dismissed its Preliminary Objection dated 30th May 2025 and allowed its joinder to the proceedings. It avers further that aggrieved by that ruling, it filed Civil Appeal No. E974 of 2025 challenging the Court's jurisdiction and the propriety of joining it in the absence of an employer-employee relationship with the Claimant.
4. The Applicant contends that the appeal raises serious and arguable questions of law with high prospects of success. It further states that the matter is scheduled for mention on 13th November 2025 to confirm compliance with filing pleadings and fears that, if the proceedings continue, the appeal may be rendered nugatory.
5. According to the Applicant, the Court may proceed to determine the substantive dispute before the appeal is heard, thereby exposing it to proceedings and possible orders which the appellate court may ultimately find were made without jurisdiction.
6. The Applicant maintains that the application has been filed promptly and in good faith, that no prejudice will be occasioned to the other parties if a stay is granted, and that it is in the interests of justice, fairness, and the efficient use of judicial resources that the proceedings be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.
7. The Claimant/Respondent opposed the application vide a Replying affidavit sworn by the Claimant on 6th February, 2026.
8. The Claimant/Respondent avers that the ruling delivered by the Court on 3rd October 2025 was comprehensive, well-reasoned, and based on a careful evaluation of the pleadings, affidavits, and written submissions. According to the Claimant, the Court made detailed factual findings and delivered reasoned determinations on the issues before it, including the question of jurisdiction and the joinder of the 1st Third Party.
9. The Claimant/Respondent states that, in its rulings delivered on 3rd October 2025, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute and that she had established sufficient grounds to justify the joinder of the Third Parties to the proceedings.
10. The Claimant maintains that the Court has already determined that it has jurisdiction because the dispute arises from the employment contract. The Claimant argues that the appeal does not affect the substantive claim against the Respondents and that a stay would only cause further delay and prejudice in a matter pending since April 2023.
11. The Claimant also contends that the 1st Third Party/Applicant has not prosecuted its intended appeal diligently, having failed to serve the record of appeal and to file responses in the proceedings, and submits that the application is intended solely to delay the determination of this suit.
12. The Claimant argues that a stay of proceedings would unjustifiably infringe on her right to access justice and the expeditious determination of her claim. It is her contention that the 1st Third Party's role is merely derivative, relating only to any contribution or indemnity owed to the Respondents, and that it has no direct interest in the substantive employment dispute between the Claimant and the Respondents, and that any issues between the Respondents and the Third Parties can be determined separately without delaying the main suit.
13. The Claimant further submits that the application is an abuse of the court process, intended solely to delay the proceedings, and that the mere filing of an intended appeal does not justify a stay. According to the Claimant, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the matter proceeds.
14. The Claimant further argues that the continued delay will cause significant prejudice to her, a retired employee who has been denied pension benefits for many years. The Claimant therefore urges the Court to dismiss the application, arguing that the balance of convenience favours allowing the suit to proceed to hearing.
15. The Claimant submits that the Court is constitutionally obliged to ensure the expeditious and efficient resolution of disputes and that granting a stay would be inconsistent with that objective.
16. The Claimant therefore finally contends that the application is devoid of merit, frivolous, and intended solely to delay the proceedings, and urges the Court to dismiss it with costs.
17. Parties canvassed the application by way of written submissions, which have been duly considered.
Analysis and Determination
18. The sole issue for determination is whether the 1st Third Party/Applicant has satisfied the legal threshold for the grant of an order staying further proceedings pending the hearing and determination of its appeal before the Court of Appeal.
19. An order staying proceedings is a discretionary remedy which ought to be exercised sparingly for reason that it has the effect of interrupting a litigant's right to prosecute his or her claim.
20. The Court of Appeal in Global Tours & Travels Limited, Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000 held that in determining whether to grant a stay of proceedings, the Court should weigh the pros and cons of granting or refusing the order, taking into account the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the arguability of the intended appeal, the scarcity and optimum utilisation of judicial time, and whether the application has been brought expeditiously. The Court further emphasized that the overriding consideration is whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the stay.
21. Similarly, in Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei [2019] KEHC 10478 (KLR), the Court of Appeal observed that a stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with a litigant's right to have his dispute determined without undue delay and should therefore only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice so demand.
22. Further, the Supreme Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & Another [2018] KESC 2 (KLR), also underscored that judicial discretion must always be exercised in a manner that advances the constitutional values under Articles 48 and 159 of the Constitution, including access to justice and the expeditious disposal of disputes.
23. The Applicant's principal argument is that it has lodged Civil Appeal No. E974 of 2025 challenging this Court's finding on jurisdiction and the propriety of its joinder as a Third Party. It contends that unless these proceedings are stayed, the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
24. For starters, the mere filing of an appeal, or even the existence of an arguable appeal, does not automatically entitle an applicant to a stay of proceedings. The Court must still evaluate whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated to halt the proceedings altogether.
25. Secondly, the impugned ruling merely determined two preliminary questions, namely, that this Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain the Claim and that the Third Parties were properly joined to the proceedings. It is evident that those determinations did not resolve the substantive dispute between the Claimant and the Respondents.
26. The Applicant has further not demonstrated how allowing the suit to proceed to hearing would render the pending appeal nugatory. In my view, should the Court of Appeal ultimately reach a different conclusion regarding the Applicant's joinder or this Court's jurisdiction to hear the matter, the appellate court retains sufficient powers to grant the appropriate relief.
27. The Applicant has therefore not demonstrated any irreversible prejudice incapable of being remedied.
28. Thirdly, this Court takes cognizance of the nature of third party proceedings under Order 1 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The liability of a third party is ancillary and contingent upon the liability of the defendant who issued the third party notice. Indeed, the Rules expressly contemplate that issues between a defendant and a third party may be determined at or after the hearing of the principal suit. Consequently, the pendency of an appeal concerning joinder of the Third Party does not necessarily impede the determination of the primary dispute between the Claimant and the Respondents.
29. The Court also notes that the suit herein has been pending since April 2023 and has already been delayed by several interlocutory applications. Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution requires justice to be administered without undue delay, while Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act oblige the Court to facilitate the just, proportionate, and expeditious determination of disputes.
30. Granting an indefinite stay pending the conclusion of the appellate proceedings would, in my view, run contrary to these objectives.
31. In light of the foregoing, I am persuaded that the greater prejudice lies in delaying the hearing of the substantive claim herein, as the Applicant has failed to establish sufficient cause to warrant the extraordinary remedy of staying proceedings.
32. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 11th December 2025 is dismissed, and the stay sought is declined.
22. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
23. Orders accordingly.
SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.
Ms. Wekesa h/b for Mr. Odhiambo for the Claimant/Respondent
Ms. Karori h/b for Mr. Wamayi for the Respondents
N/A for the 1st Third Party
Mr. Shikanga present for the 2nd third Party
Ms. Esther S -C/A
i. Spent.
ii. Spent
iii. Pending hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. E974 of 2025 filed by the 1st Third Party against the Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on 3rd October 2025, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in this matter.
iv. The Costs of the application be in the cause.
2. The application is supported by grounds on the face of the Motion and the affidavit of Mercy K. Wambugu, sworn on 11th December, 2025.
3. The Applicant states that on 3rd October 2025, this Court dismissed its Preliminary Objection dated 30th May 2025 and allowed its joinder to the proceedings. It avers further that aggrieved by that ruling, it filed Civil Appeal No. E974 of 2025 challenging the Court's jurisdiction and the propriety of joining it in the absence of an employer-employee relationship with the Claimant.
4. The Applicant contends that the appeal raises serious and arguable questions of law with high prospects of success. It further states that the matter is scheduled for mention on 13th November 2025 to confirm compliance with filing pleadings and fears that, if the proceedings continue, the appeal may be rendered nugatory.
5. According to the Applicant, the Court may proceed to determine the substantive dispute before the appeal is heard, thereby exposing it to proceedings and possible orders which the appellate court may ultimately find were made without jurisdiction.
6. The Applicant maintains that the application has been filed promptly and in good faith, that no prejudice will be occasioned to the other parties if a stay is granted, and that it is in the interests of justice, fairness, and the efficient use of judicial resources that the proceedings be stayed pending the determination of the appeal.
7. The Claimant/Respondent opposed the application vide a Replying affidavit sworn by the Claimant on 6th February, 2026.
8. The Claimant/Respondent avers that the ruling delivered by the Court on 3rd October 2025 was comprehensive, well-reasoned, and based on a careful evaluation of the pleadings, affidavits, and written submissions. According to the Claimant, the Court made detailed factual findings and delivered reasoned determinations on the issues before it, including the question of jurisdiction and the joinder of the 1st Third Party.
9. The Claimant/Respondent states that, in its rulings delivered on 3rd October 2025, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute and that she had established sufficient grounds to justify the joinder of the Third Parties to the proceedings.
10. The Claimant maintains that the Court has already determined that it has jurisdiction because the dispute arises from the employment contract. The Claimant argues that the appeal does not affect the substantive claim against the Respondents and that a stay would only cause further delay and prejudice in a matter pending since April 2023.
11. The Claimant also contends that the 1st Third Party/Applicant has not prosecuted its intended appeal diligently, having failed to serve the record of appeal and to file responses in the proceedings, and submits that the application is intended solely to delay the determination of this suit.
12. The Claimant argues that a stay of proceedings would unjustifiably infringe on her right to access justice and the expeditious determination of her claim. It is her contention that the 1st Third Party's role is merely derivative, relating only to any contribution or indemnity owed to the Respondents, and that it has no direct interest in the substantive employment dispute between the Claimant and the Respondents, and that any issues between the Respondents and the Third Parties can be determined separately without delaying the main suit.
13. The Claimant further submits that the application is an abuse of the court process, intended solely to delay the proceedings, and that the mere filing of an intended appeal does not justify a stay. According to the Claimant, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or show that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the matter proceeds.
14. The Claimant further argues that the continued delay will cause significant prejudice to her, a retired employee who has been denied pension benefits for many years. The Claimant therefore urges the Court to dismiss the application, arguing that the balance of convenience favours allowing the suit to proceed to hearing.
15. The Claimant submits that the Court is constitutionally obliged to ensure the expeditious and efficient resolution of disputes and that granting a stay would be inconsistent with that objective.
16. The Claimant therefore finally contends that the application is devoid of merit, frivolous, and intended solely to delay the proceedings, and urges the Court to dismiss it with costs.
17. Parties canvassed the application by way of written submissions, which have been duly considered.
Analysis and Determination
18. The sole issue for determination is whether the 1st Third Party/Applicant has satisfied the legal threshold for the grant of an order staying further proceedings pending the hearing and determination of its appeal before the Court of Appeal.
19. An order staying proceedings is a discretionary remedy which ought to be exercised sparingly for reason that it has the effect of interrupting a litigant's right to prosecute his or her claim.
20. The Court of Appeal in Global Tours & Travels Limited, Nairobi HC Winding Up Cause No. 43 of 2000 held that in determining whether to grant a stay of proceedings, the Court should weigh the pros and cons of granting or refusing the order, taking into account the need for expeditious disposal of cases, the arguability of the intended appeal, the scarcity and optimum utilisation of judicial time, and whether the application has been brought expeditiously. The Court further emphasized that the overriding consideration is whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the stay.
21. Similarly, in Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei [2019] KEHC 10478 (KLR), the Court of Appeal observed that a stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with a litigant's right to have his dispute determined without undue delay and should therefore only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice so demand.
22. Further, the Supreme Court in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & Another [2018] KESC 2 (KLR), also underscored that judicial discretion must always be exercised in a manner that advances the constitutional values under Articles 48 and 159 of the Constitution, including access to justice and the expeditious disposal of disputes.
23. The Applicant's principal argument is that it has lodged Civil Appeal No. E974 of 2025 challenging this Court's finding on jurisdiction and the propriety of its joinder as a Third Party. It contends that unless these proceedings are stayed, the appeal will be rendered nugatory.
24. For starters, the mere filing of an appeal, or even the existence of an arguable appeal, does not automatically entitle an applicant to a stay of proceedings. The Court must still evaluate whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated to halt the proceedings altogether.
25. Secondly, the impugned ruling merely determined two preliminary questions, namely, that this Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain the Claim and that the Third Parties were properly joined to the proceedings. It is evident that those determinations did not resolve the substantive dispute between the Claimant and the Respondents.
26. The Applicant has further not demonstrated how allowing the suit to proceed to hearing would render the pending appeal nugatory. In my view, should the Court of Appeal ultimately reach a different conclusion regarding the Applicant's joinder or this Court's jurisdiction to hear the matter, the appellate court retains sufficient powers to grant the appropriate relief.
27. The Applicant has therefore not demonstrated any irreversible prejudice incapable of being remedied.
28. Thirdly, this Court takes cognizance of the nature of third party proceedings under Order 1 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The liability of a third party is ancillary and contingent upon the liability of the defendant who issued the third party notice. Indeed, the Rules expressly contemplate that issues between a defendant and a third party may be determined at or after the hearing of the principal suit. Consequently, the pendency of an appeal concerning joinder of the Third Party does not necessarily impede the determination of the primary dispute between the Claimant and the Respondents.
29. The Court also notes that the suit herein has been pending since April 2023 and has already been delayed by several interlocutory applications. Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution requires justice to be administered without undue delay, while Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act oblige the Court to facilitate the just, proportionate, and expeditious determination of disputes.
30. Granting an indefinite stay pending the conclusion of the appellate proceedings would, in my view, run contrary to these objectives.
31. In light of the foregoing, I am persuaded that the greater prejudice lies in delaying the hearing of the substantive claim herein, as the Applicant has failed to establish sufficient cause to warrant the extraordinary remedy of staying proceedings.
32. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 11th December 2025 is dismissed, and the stay sought is declined.
22. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main suit.
23. Orders accordingly.
SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.
C. N. BAARI
JUDGE
Appearance: Ms. Wekesa h/b for Mr. Odhiambo for the Claimant/Respondent
Ms. Karori h/b for Mr. Wamayi for the Respondents
N/A for the 1st Third Party
Mr. Shikanga present for the 2nd third Party
Ms. Esther S -C/A