[2018] KEELRC 304 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 304 (KLR)

The court found that the delay of four days in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained by the applicant as being due to miscommunication between its insurers and advocates. The respondent did not materially dispute the explanation for the delay. The court further found that the applicant had demonstrated an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 304 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: English Press Limited; Respondent: Ben Simiyu Buyobo
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 124 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
application allowed with conditions
Judges
B Ongaya
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Extension of Time, Appeals Process, Quantum of Damages
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Extension of Time Appeals Process Quantum of Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

English Press Limited

Applicant

Ben Simiyu Buyobo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file an appeal out of time against the judgment of the lower court.
  2. 2 Whether a stay of execution of the judgment and decree should be granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in filing the appeal was excusable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of four days in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained by the applicant as being due to miscommunication between its insurers and advocates. The respondent did not materially dispute the explanation for the delay. The court further found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable appeal, particularly on the issue of quantum of damages. Regarding the stay of execution, the court held that the applicant was amenable to providing security and that the respondent had not filed an affidavit to contest the risk of irrecoverability of the decretal sum. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant both the extension of time to appeal and a...

Court Disposition

application allowed with conditions

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the judgment and decree given by Hon. Peter Muholi on 15th August 2018 in CMCC No. 2017 of 2017 is granted, subject to the applicant depositing the full decretal sum in an interest earning account in the joint names of the parties’ advocates by 21st December 2018 and pending the hearing and...
  • Extension of time and leave granted to the applicant to lodge a memorandum of appeal by 21st December 2018 against the judgment entered on 15th August 2018.