OMAR AWADH OMAR & 6 OTHERS v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA & 2 OTHERS

When the matter came up for hearing on  the 28th day of February, 2012, Counsel for the Second Respondent, Ms. Patricia Mutesi, made an oral application for stay of further proceedings pending an intended appeal against the ruling of this court dated 1st December, 2011.

The ground for the intended Appeal as contained in a Notice of Appeal is against the whole decision of this Court as decided that Reference No. 4 of 2011 is not time-barred.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant, namely, Mr. Amuga strenuously opposed the application. In support of his stance, he essentially contended that:

1. The intended Appeal has no chance of success.
2. The 1st Respondent’s counsel was aware of today’s hearing but took no steps to let the Claimant’s/Applicant’s Counsel know of the intended prayer for stay of proceedings in order to avoid the inconvenience so caused as a result thereof.
3. The stay would be prejudicial to the Applicant as it would result in criminal proceedingsagainst his client’s in the Ugandan Criminal Courts hence defeat the very purpose of the Reference now before the Court.