[2023] KEELRC 640 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents had not demonstrated compliance with the consent order to pay Kshs 5,000,000 within 90 days, nor had they complied with the conditions for interim stay previously granted. The Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction to vary or alter the consent entered before...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 640 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Bruce Odeny & Co Advocates; Respondent: Scottish Tartan Hotel Ltd; Respondent: William Roman McTough
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application E087 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Determination of Reference
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Consent Judgments, Enforcement of Decrees, Advocate Fee Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bruce Odeny & Co Advocates
Applicant
Scottish Tartan Hotel Ltd
Respondent
William Roman McTough
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Determination of Reference
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to a stay of execution of the decree issued on January 23, 2023 pending determination of the reference.
- 2 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to vary or alter the terms of a consent entered before the High Court.
- 3 Whether the respondents have complied with the conditions for interim stay previously granted by the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents had not demonstrated compliance with the consent order to pay Kshs 5,000,000 within 90 days, nor had they complied with the conditions for interim stay previously granted. The Employment and Labour Relations Court lacked jurisdiction to vary or alter the consent entered before the High Court in the event of default; such jurisdiction lies with the High Court. The respondents' filing of a second application for stay while a similar application was pending determination was improper. The court concluded that the respondents had not met the legal threshold for the orders sought and dismissed the application with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The respondents' Motion dated 6 March 2023 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Bruce Odeny & Co Advocates v Scottish Tartan Hotel Ltd & another (Miscellaneous Application E087 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 640 (KLR) (8 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 640 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Miscellaneous Application E087 of 2021
S Radido, J
March 8, 2023
Between
Bruce Odeny & Co Advocates
Applicant
and
Scottish Tartan Hotel Ltd
1st Respondent
William Roman McTough
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. For determination is a motion under a certificate of urgency dated March 6, 2023, by the respondents seeking orders:(1)…(2)That this honourable court do stay execution of the decree issued on January 23, 2023 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes.(3)That the honourable court do stay the execution of the decree issued on January 23, 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the Reference.(4)That no execution can issue herein, the applicant/respondent having elected to record the debt in Kisumu High Court Commercial Case No E005 of 2022. (5)That the honourable court do exercise its jurisdiction to permit the respondents/applicants to liquidate this decretal sum in Kisumu High Court Commercial Case No E005 of 2022. (6)That the costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The primary grounds in support of the application were that the parties had entered into a consent before the High Court in Kisumu High Court Commercial Case No E005 of 2022, that the respondents pay the advocate Kshs 5,000,000/- in full settlement of all pending legal fees and that Kshs 280,000/- had been made; that having entered into the consent, it was not open to the advocate to move to execute and there was an application dated September 19, 2022, pending determination by the Court on April 19, 2023.
3. The advocate filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the Motion on March 7, 2023, and the Court took oral submissions on March 8, 2023.
4. In the affidavit, the advocate deponed that the respondents had failed to comply with the terms of the consent to pay Kshs 5,000,000/- within 90 days and therefore, the default clause on execution became implicated; that with the default, taxation of individual fee bills was to continue with attendant execution; that mpesa payments which had been made related to other Causes and that the application was a mischievous attempt to frustrate him.
5. The Court has considered the Motion, affidavits and submissions and come to the following findings.
6. One, the respondents have not demonstrated that they complied with the terms of the consent entered before the High Court within 90 days.
7. Two, it is not open to this Court to attempt to vary or alter the terms of the consent entered before the High Court in case of default. The jurisdiction belongs to the High Court and, therefore, it would be remiss of this Court to allow or vary the consent and allow settlement in instalments.
8. Three, this Court allowed the respondents interim stay of execution on September 29, 2022, on a condition which they have not complied with.
9. The respondents have not placed any sufficient material before the Court to show any difficulty in complying with the condition.
10. Four, the respondents application dated September 19, 2023, in which Ruling has been scheduled for April 19, 2023, sought a stay of execution.
11. Since the Court is yet to determine the application with finality, it was legally improper for the respondents to file another application seeking stay of execution.
12. Before concluding, the Court once again reiterates to the respondents to approach the advocate in good faith, if at all they have difficulties in meeting the terms of the consent. Engaging in further litigation to vary or stop the consent without meeting the legal threshold would not be of any assistance, but would only serve to increase the costs.
Conclusion and orders 13. The Court finds no merit in the respondents’ Motion dated 6 March 2023. It is dismissed with costs.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2023. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARBJUDGEAppearancesFor advocate Ms Mwangi instructed by Bruce Odeny & Co. AdvocatesFor respondents Mr Kasamani instructed by Kasamani & AssociatesCourt Assistant Dennis Wafula