[2021] KECA 589 (KLR)
The court held that the order sought to be stayed was a negative order, being a dismissal of the applicants' suit, which did not require any party to do or refrain from doing anything. As such, the decree was incapable of enforcement or execution and therefore could not be stayed. Additionally, the court noted the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KECA 589 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Francis O. Oyier & Others; Respondent: National Water Conservation & Pipeline Conservation; Respondent: Principal Secretary, Ministry of Water and Irrigation; Respondent: The Honourable Attorney General
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Application 89 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Negative Orders, Redeployment of Employees, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Francis O. Oyier & Others
Applicant
National Water Conservation & Pipeline Conservation
Respondent
Principal Secretary, Ministry of Water and Irrigation
Respondent
The Honourable Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution can be granted where the order appealed from is a dismissal (negative order).
- 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated intent to pursue the intended appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the order sought to be stayed was a negative order, being a dismissal of the applicants' suit, which did not require any party to do or refrain from doing anything. As such, the decree was incapable of enforcement or execution and therefore could not be stayed. Additionally, the court noted the applicants' prolonged inactivity in filing the substantive appeal, concluding that they were no longer intent on pursuing the appeal. On these grounds, the application for stay of execution was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
- There shall be no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT NAIROBI
(CORAM: OUKO, (P), OKWENGU & GATEMBU, JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2018
BETWEEN
FRANCIS O. OYIER & OTHERS ................................... APPLICANTS
AND
NATIONAL WATER CONSERVATION
& PIPELINE CONSERVATION ............................ 1STRESPONDENT
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY
OF WATER AND IRRIGATION ............................2NDRESPONDENT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL ..3RDRESPONDNET
(An application for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal from the judgment and
decree of the Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Wasilwa, J.)
dated 10thNovember, 2017
in
ELRC No. 515 of 2016
Consolidated with
Petition No. 50 of 2016)
******
RULING OF THE COURT
Wasilwa, J. by a judgment dated 10th November, 2017 dismissed the applicants’ suits in the Employment and Labour Relations Court challenging the 1st respondent’s decision to redeploy them back to the parent ministry, the then Ministry of Water and Irrigation, as opposed to absorbing them as its employees. The applicants were originally employed by the aforestated ministry and subsequently seconded to the 1st respondent.
Contesting the judgment, the applicants filed a notice of appeal to that effect as well as the motion before us for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
Pursuant to the Court’s Covid-19 Practice Note, notice was given to the parties and counsel, that the motion would be disposed of by written submissions without the appearance of counsel. Nonetheless, the respondents did not file any replying affidavits and likewise, none of the parties filed their written submissions. This determination of the application is therefore based on the pleadings on record.
First we note that the decision of the court below sought to be stayed was a dismissal of the applicant’s suit, amounting to a negative order which did not require any of the parties to do or to refrain from doing anything. It follows therefore that the decree is incapable of being enforced or executed, hence cannot be stayed. See Charles Munyendo Olingo vs. Salim Chetechi Makokha & Another[2019] eKLR.
Furthermore, we cannot help but note that despite the notice of appeal being filed on 13th November, 2017 the applicants are yet to file the substantive appeal in this Court more than three years later. In our view, the only logical conclusion of this inactivity on the part of the applicants is that they are no longer intent on pursuing the appeal. Even though that is the position and we would have, on our own motion invoked Rule 83 of this Court’s Rules and deemed the applicant’s motion as withdrawn, on merit we dismiss it with no orders as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2021.
W. OUKO, (P)
……………………………….
JUDGE OF APPEAL
HANNAH OKWENGU
………………….…………..
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S. GATEMBU KAIRU, (FCIArb)
……………………………..…
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
Signed
DEPUTY REGISTRAR