1.Thatthere be a stay of further proceedings in this suit pending the hearing and determination of an appeal by the Respondents from the Ruling and Order of this Court (Hon. Mr. Justice J. N. Abuodha) dated 22nd September, 2017.
2.Thatcosts of this application be provided for.It is grounded as follows;i.The Respondents have appealed against this court’s decision given on 22nd September, 2027, being Civil Appeal No. E779 of 2021, at the Court of Appeal.ii.The Respondents’ appeal has high chances of success.iii.If an order of stay of further proceedings is not granted and the appeal eventually succeeds, considerable time and expense will go to waste.iv.It is in the interest of justice that a stay of further proceedings is granted so that hearing of this case is not undertaken in vain, in the likely event that the Respondents’ appeal eventually succeeds.
3.The Claimant/Respondent in a Replying Affidavit sworn on 14th June, 2023 opposes the application for want of merit and pray that it be dismissed with costs.
4.The Respondents/Applicants in their written submission dated 4th September, 2023 seeks to buttress their case by relying on the authority of Global Tours & Travels Limited; Nairobi HC Winding Up cause No. 43 of 2000, where the courts made the following pronouncement on stay of proceeding pending appeal;
5.She further sought to rely on the authority of UAP Insurance Company Ltd v Michael John Beckett  where the court of Appeal held as follows;
6.It is her case that in addition to the principle of negation in the event of a successful appeal, the applicant has and an arguable case warranting the court to exercise its discretion in her favour.
7.The Claimant/Respondent vide his written submissions dated 6th September, 2023 rubbishes the application and submits thus;2.1 The Claimant filed an Application on 19th May 2016 vide Miscellaneous Application 64 of 2016, seeking to have Nairobi CMCC No. 7973 of 2010,an employment dispute which the Claimant had filed at the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani, transferred to the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi. The Application for transfer was allowed on 26th May 2016 by Honourable Justice J. N Abuodha.2.2 Upon successful transfer of the suit to this Honourable Court, the Applicants vide the application dated 31st May 2016 sought review of the order of 26th May 2016. The Court in its Ruling of 22nd September, 2017 found that there was no error in its earlier ruling and dismissed the Application.2.3 Aggrieved by the ruling, the Applicants filed an Appeal vide Nairobi Civil Appeal Number E779 of 2021at the Court of Appeal, four years after the same had been delivered. The instant application seeking stay was further filed five years after the delivery of the said ruling.2.4 The delay in seeking the stay of proceedings before this Court has neither been addressed nor explained. It shall be argued that the Respondents are guilty of latches and the application herein is clearly an afterthought.4.1 The Court’s power to stay proceedings is discretionary and is meant to be exercised judiciously. The intention for the exercise of this discretion is to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake or error. Such discretion is not to be exercised and is not designed to assist persons who have deliberately sought to abstract or delay, either by evasion or otherwise, the course of justice. The Applications have not put forth any reason why this Honourable Court should exercise its inherent discretion in their favour. We rely on the decision of Shah v Mbogo  E A 116 and 123B which was quoted with approval in the case of Ephantus Gathua Muiyuro v Kenya Power & Lighting Company Ltd  eKLR which states as follows:
8.Further, the Claimant/Respondent faults the application on grounds that at all times, the Respondent/Applicant has not displayed a case of expeditious disposal of the matter, or at all. It is his case that this is a critical safeguard for the court to observe in granting stay of execution as is the case here. He submits as follows;4.16Pursuant to Section 1A (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, 2010, parties to civil proceedings have a duty to assist the Court to facilitate the just, expeditious and proportionate resolution of civil disputes and to comply with the directions and orders of the Court. Accordingly pursuant to Section 1A as read together with 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this Court is under a duty to dispense justice to all parties in a timely manner. If an application is meant to delay the wheels of justice then this Court must put a stop to it. See Peter Kariuki Mburu & another v Neema Shah  eKLR at para 27.
9.The Claimant/Respondent couples this by citing authority of Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei (Supra) and Peter Kariuki Mburu & another v Neema shah (supra) where it was held that inordinate delay in filing an application as is the case here is a denial of stay.
10.The Claimant/Respondent cites and demonstrates dalliance in the filing of both this application and the appeal at hand. This is not explained. They do not explain why the appeal has not being prosecuted so far.
11.The Claimant further submits that contrary to the claims of the Applicant, there are no sufficient reasons as to why granting stay of proceedings would be in the best interest of justice.This is because:
12.This court takes sides with the Claimant/Respondent. He has suffered the ignominy of injustice, having been disabled from effectively prosecuting his matter since 2005. This is a whooping eighteen (18) years down the line. What injustice!
13.I would agree with the Claimant/Respondent that there is suspected mischief in the conduct of the Respondent/Applicant culminating in this application. The issue of delay is evidenced in the background.
14.The Respondent/Applicant has in toto failed to display a case to warrant this court to exercise its discretion in her favour. In any event, it is evidenced that doing so would result in grievous injustice to the Claimant/Respondent. It would amount to delayed justice. This would be unjust in the circumstances.
15.I am therefore incline to dismiss the application with costs to the Claimant/Respondent.