[2018] KEELRC 122 (KLR)
The court held that the respondent had not breached the conditional stay order because the next government budget, which would allow for the required budgetary allocation, was yet to be made. The order required the respondent to make the allocation by 1st July 2018 or in the next government budget. Since the next...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 122 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Dadson Maina & 33 Others; Respondent: The Board of Management Nyeri Primary School
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 168 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Enforcement Application / Ruling on Application for Enforcement of Judgment and Interpretation of Stay Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Enforcement of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Budgetary Allocation, Public Sector Employment
- 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
Dadson Maina & 33 Others
Applicant
The Board of Management Nyeri Primary School
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Enforcement Application / Ruling on Application for Enforcement of Judgment and Interpretation of Stay Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent breached the conditional stay order by failing to make a budgetary allocation for payment of decretal sums by 1st July 2018 or in the next government budget.
- 2 Whether the stay of execution should be vacated due to alleged non-compliance with the court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondent had not breached the conditional stay order because the next government budget, which would allow for the required budgetary allocation, was yet to be made. The order required the respondent to make the allocation by 1st July 2018 or in the next government budget. Since the next budget was due on 1st July 2019, the respondent still had time to comply. The application for enforcement was therefore premature. The court clarified that if the respondent failed to make the allocation in the next budget, the stay would be vacated. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application by the claimants is dismissed.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 168 OF 2016
DADSON MAINA &33 OTHERS.................................................................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT NYERI PRIMARY SCHOOL........RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Claimants moved the court for the enforcement of a judgment decreed by the court (Ongaya J.) on 15th December 2017. The interpretation of the order of stay is what precipitated the notice of motion dated 31st October 2018 and amended on 7th November 2018. In the order of stay, in the material part of the order, the Court stated as follows:-
THAT there be a stay of execution pending Appeal, subject to the Respondent making budgetary allocation for the payment of the full decretal sums, and to do so by 01. 07. 2018 or in the next government budget.
2. The order was conditional on a step being taken. The Respondent was to make a budgetary allocation for the payment of the full decretal sums by 1st July 2018 or in the next Government budget. In this case, the Claimants assert that the Respondent did not make any allocation by 1st July 2018 and therefore are in breach as it was not made in the next government budget. In December 2017, the Government budgetary cycle was midstream and was to lapse on 30th June 2018. The order for the budgetary allocation by 1st July 2018 therefore meant the Respondent had to make a budgetary allocation by 2018/2019 financial year or in the alternative by the next Government budget, the next budget is due on 1st July 2019 and will cover the 2019/2020 financial year. In this regard, the Respondent has not breached the order of the court as the next government budget is yet to be made and urge the Respondent to ensure the court order is complied with so that come 1st July 2019 there is no need for an application for enforcement. My reading of the order is that failing such budgetary allocation the stay will stand vacated as the condition given by the court will not have been met. I will dismiss the application by the Claimants with an order that each party bears their own costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 13th day of December 2018
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE