(v) Based on the circumstances set out above. The decision and determination by 130 the CA over this Court's judgment of enclosure 195 in suit 425 would have a direct bearing and impact on the outcome of this current OS. On that basis, the plaintiff applied for a stay of proceedings (enclosure 20) on 15.02.2022. 135 [6] In support of enclosure 20 for a stay, the plaintiff cited: - Ling Peek Hoe & Anor v Golden Star & Ors [2020] 6 MLJ 689, CA: "[45] The issue of staying proceedings was the subject of detailed consideration by 140 the Court of Appeal in AB (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 921. The Court firstly contrasted a stay of proceedings with a stay of enforcement of a judicial decision or Order. It emphasized that the stay of proceedings issue involves case management decisions. It is added at para [25]: 145 "27. A stay on proceedings may be associated with the grant of interim relief, but it is essentially different. In determining whether proceedings should be stayed, the concerns of the Court itself have to be taken into the balance. Decisions as to listing and decisions as to which cases are to be heard at any particular time are matters for the Court itself, and no party to 150 a claim can demand that it be heard before or after any other claim. The Court will want to deal with claims before it as expeditiously as is consistent with justice. But, on the other hand, it is unlikely to want to waste time and other valuable resources on an exercise that may well be pointless if conducted too soon. If therefore, the Court is shown that there will be, or 155 there is likely to be, some event in the foreseeable future that may have an impact on the way a claim is decided, it may decide to stay proceedings in the claim until after that event. It may be more inclined to grant a stay if there is an agreement between the parties. It may not need to grant a stay if the pattern of work shows that the matter will not come on for trial before 160 the event in question. The starting point must, however, be that a claimant seeks an expeditious determination of his claim and that delay will be ordered only if good reason is shown. … [50] In light of Order 92 rule 4 of ROC and the authorities cited in para 46 and 48 165 above, we regard the jurisdiction involved by the High Court as exceptional, that is to say, it is a jurisdiction which should not be exercised unless it appears that the order appeal from it will affect an injustice and the injustice can be avoided by the intervention of the Court. [51] We are of the view that the review application in the Federal Court would have 170 an implication upon the outcome of the present case. However, it must be emphasized that it is undesirable at this stage to canvass the argument of whether the review application will succeed. [53] It is undeniable that if the respondents were ultimately to succeed on the review application, the severity of prejudice that could be suffered by the 175 defendants is apparent if the stay of the committal proceeding is not allowed as the committal proceeding is a proceeding that is penal in nature. The issue of the balance of justice is, therefore, in favor of the defendants. [54] We were, therefore, not persuaded that there has been an error to warrant an appellate intervention in the exercise of discretion by the learned JC in the 180 grant of stay of the committal proceeding." - AB (Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 921, UK CA was also cited with approval by the Federal Court in Public Prosecutor v Dato' Sri Mohd Najib bin Hj Abd Razak 185 [2019] 4 MLJ 421, FC, albeit in the context of a criminal proceeding, Richard Malanjum CJ, held as follows - "[30] In short, the principles distilled from the English Court of Appeal decision in AB (Sudan) are these -