[2021] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would result if stay of execution was not granted. The assertion that the claimant is of little means was unsupported by evidence and is insufficient to justify a stay. The respondent delayed in prosecuting the earlier application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1402 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jeconiah Opiyo Makounde; Respondent: Build Africa Kenya
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1996 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the claimant
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Security for Decree
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Security for Decree

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeconiah Opiyo Makounde

Applicant

Build Africa Kenya

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 the hearing and determination of the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would result if stay of execution was not granted. The assertion that the claimant is of little means was unsupported by evidence and is insufficient to justify a stay. The respondent delayed in prosecuting the earlier application for stay and failed to act promptly after judgment was delivered. The application for stay was therefore not made without unreasonable delay. The respondent also failed to address the issue that the appeal was filed out of time. Granting a stay in these circumstances would unjustly prejudice the claimant, who is entitled to enjoy the fruits of a valid judgment. The application for...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the claimant

Orders

  • The application dated 27th April, 2021 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the claimant.