[2016] KEELRC 1377 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 1377 (KLR)

The court found that the Respondent's application was premised on the alleged existence of an agreement to settle the decretal sum by monthly installments. However, the Claimant denied any such agreement and the Respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence to support its claim. The court held that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 1377 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Edward Wesonga; Respondent: Rapid Communications Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1096 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Payment by Installments
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the claimant
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Redundancy Settlement, Stay of Execution, Payment by Installments
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Redundancy Settlement Stay of Execution Payment by Installments

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Wesonga

Claimant

Rapid Communications Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Payment by Installments

  1. 1 Whether there existed a verifiable agreement between the parties for settlement of the decretal sum by monthly installments.
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent is entitled to a stay of execution of the warrant of attachment.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent should be allowed to settle the decretal sum by monthly installments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent's application was premised on the alleged existence of an agreement to settle the decretal sum by monthly installments. However, the Claimant denied any such agreement and the Respondent failed to produce any documentary evidence to support its claim. The court held that the grounds advanced by the Respondent were not verifiable and could not form the basis for granting the orders sought. Consequently, the application for stay of execution and for payment by installments was dismissed with costs to the Claimant, and interim orders previously granted were set aside.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the claimant

Orders

  • The Respondent's application dated 11th February 2016 is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
  • The interim orders granted on 18th February 2016 are set aside.