[2021] KEELRC 2297 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 2297 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay, satisfying the first requirement under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the applicants failed to demonstrate that they would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, and had not offered any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 2297 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis Onino Opondo; Applicant: Celestine Wamalwa Wekesa; Applicant: Ndwashe Migwi (Suing on their own behalf and on Behalf of 49 others); Respondent: Majani Mingi Sisal Estate Limited; Respondent: Harry Horn
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 39 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
conditional stay of execution granted
Judges
HS Wasilwa
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum, Appeal Process, Substantial Loss, Timeliness of Application
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Security for Decretal Sum Appeal Process Substantial Loss Timeliness of Application

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Onino Opondo

Applicant

Celestine Wamalwa Wekesa

Applicant

Ndwashe Migwi (Suing on their own behalf and on Behalf of 49 others)

Applicant

Majani Mingi Sisal Estate Limited

Respondent

Harry Horn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have demonstrated substantial loss may result if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay, satisfying the first requirement under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the applicants failed to demonstrate that they would suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, and had not offered any security for the due performance of the decree. Despite these shortcomings, the court considered that an appeal had already been preferred and, in order to preserve the substratum of the appeal, granted a conditional stay of execution. The stay was made subject to the applicants depositing the entire decretal sum in an interest-earning account held jointly by the parties'...

Court Disposition

conditional stay of execution granted

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the judgment/decree issued on 30th September 2020 is granted on condition that the applicants deposit the entire decretal sum in an interest-earning account held in the joint names of counsels on record within 30 days.
  • In default of deposit, execution to proceed.