Guo v Beijing Zhongi Intergrated Housing technolgy Co ltd & 2 others (Cause E328 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 999 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents' Motion for stay of proceedings pending Civil Appeal No. E462 of 2024 should be granted
- 2.Whether the Respondents met the threshold for stay of proceedings (pending appeal that is arguable and which would be rendered nugatory absent stay)
- 3.Whether the Respondents' conduct disentitled them from the exercise of the Court's discretion
Key legal issues
#Whether the threshold for stay of proceedings pending appeal was met
The Court acknowledged the Karsan Ramji test but found that although the pending appeal raised the question of the Court's jurisdiction, the Respondents' conduct - failure to comply with orders to deposit security or provide a bank guarantee - disentitled them from the exercise of the Court's discretion, and the Motion was dismissed with costs.
The Respondents relied on the Court of Appeal test in Karsan Ramji & Sons Ltd v Athumani that a pending or intended appeal must be arguable and rendered nugatory absent stay, considered conjunctively. The Claimant countered with Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei, stressing that stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action interfering with access to justice and that the test is high and stringent. The Court noted the appeal questioned its jurisdiction, which ordinarily requires it to down its pen, but balanced this against the Respondents' failure to comply with orders to deposit Kshs 50,000,000 or furnish a bank guarantee, and the resulting interdiction from dealing with a named property. The Court concluded the Respondents were not deserving of the discretionary relief.
Effect of a pending appeal challenging the Court's jurisdiction on ongoing proceedings
The Court observed that where the jurisdiction of the Court is in question, prudence would require it to hold back its pen until the Court of Appeal rules on jurisdiction, but this did not outweigh the Respondents' non-compliance and conduct.
The Court accepted that the pending appeal before the Court of Appeal questioned the ELRC's jurisdiction and that 'where a Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, it must down its pen.' It further noted that legal prudence would have required it to hold back its pen pending the Court of Appeal's determination. However, the Court was being asked to exercise a discretion in the interests of justice, and the Respondents' record of non-compliance with orders (failure to deposit security or provide a bank guarantee, prompting an interdiction on dealing with property) meant they were not deserving of that discretion. The Motion for stay of proceedings was therefore dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- For a stay of proceedings pending appeal, the applicant must demonstrate a pending or intended appeal which is arguable and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay, considered conjunctively.
- Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with a litigant's right to conduct litigation; the test for stay of proceedings is high and stringent.
- Where a Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, it must down its pen.
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 27 January 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction under the Employment Act and Labour Institutions Act (original claim for constructive dismissal and breach of contract); Not stated explicitly in the excerpt
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings in the suit pending hearing and determination of Civil Appeal No. E462 of 2024 in the Court of Appeal
Respondents had failed to comply with the Court's orders to deposit security and their conduct did not merit the exercise of the Court's discretion; although the pending appeal questions the Court's jurisdiction, the Respondents were not deserving of the discretion.
Costs
Costs to the Claimant
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Where a Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, it must down its pen.
stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation. It impinges on the right to access justice, right to be heard without delay and overall right of fair trial.
the two conditions are considered conjunctively so that failure to satisfy either leads to dismissal of the application.
In light of the above, the Court orders that the Motion dated 27 January 2025 be dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion is referred to as dated 28 January 2025 in the narrative but the final order dismisses 'the Motion dated 27 January 2025' - inconsistent dates for the same Motion.
The names of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents are not given in the judgment text; they are referred to only by number.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Guo v Beijing Zhongi Intergrated Housing technolgy Co ltd & 2 others (Cause E328 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 999 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi Cause No. E328 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/999/eng@2025-03-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.