[2019] KEELRC 115 (KLR)

[2019] KEELRC 115 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents had not filed any appeal within the prescribed time following delivery of judgment on 8/10/2018, and the period for filing an appeal had expired. The explanation provided for the delay—failure by previous advocates to hand over the file—was not deemed sufficient to warrant the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELRC 115 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Boniface Nzau Muia; Respondent: Shengli Engineering Construction Company; Respondent: Cannon Assurance Company Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1511 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Judgment Enforcement
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Extension of Time Appeals Process Judgment Enforcement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boniface Nzau Muia

Claimant

Shengli Engineering Construction Company

Respondent

Cannon Assurance Company Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution of its judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend time for the respondents to file a notice of appeal out of time.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal was sufficiently explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had not filed any appeal within the prescribed time following delivery of judgment on 8/10/2018, and the period for filing an appeal had expired. The explanation provided for the delay—failure by previous advocates to hand over the file—was not deemed sufficient to warrant the court's exercise of discretion in their favor. Furthermore, the court held that there was no basis to grant a stay of execution in the absence of a pending appeal. The proper course would have been for the respondents to first seek extension of time to file an appeal from the Court of Appeal before seeking a stay. Consequently, the application for stay of execution and extension...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 8th March 2019 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.