[2017] KEELRC 486 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 486 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent had not demonstrated that the intended appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if stay of execution was not granted. The grounds raised in the draft memorandum of appeal did not impugn the terminal benefits awarded, and the assertion that the court lacked...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 486 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Janet Adema Adebe; Respondent: Kenya Fresh Produce Exporters Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 821 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application for stay of execution refused with costs
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Terminal Benefits, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal, Appeal Probability, Payment in Lieu of Notice
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Stay of Execution Terminal Benefits Compensation for Unfair Dismissal Appeal Probability Payment in Lieu of Notice

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Adema Adebe

Claimant

Kenya Fresh Produce Exporters Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment and decree pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable and would be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's financial status justifies a stay of execution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had not demonstrated that the intended appeal was arguable or that it would be rendered nugatory if stay of execution was not granted. The grounds raised in the draft memorandum of appeal did not impugn the terminal benefits awarded, and the assertion that the court lacked jurisdiction to award general damages was not persuasive in light of the express statutory provisions. Furthermore, the respondent's indication of willingness to settle the matter out of court undermined the urgency or necessity of a stay. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was refused with costs to the claimant.

Court Disposition

application for stay of execution refused with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is refused.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of this application to the claimant.