[2014] KEELRC 271 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal, as no draft memorandum of appeal or grounds of dissatisfaction with the judgment were provided. The applicant, being a large construction company, did not establish that it would suffer substantial loss or that the respondent would be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 271 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Johana Odigo Apindi; Respondent: Panesar’s Kenya Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 412 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Prerequisites, Substantial Loss, Balance of Convenience
- 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
Johana Odigo Apindi
Claimant
Panesar’s Kenya Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal to warrant stay of execution.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the application for stay was brought without inordinate delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal, as no draft memorandum of appeal or grounds of dissatisfaction with the judgment were provided. The applicant, being a large construction company, did not establish that it would suffer substantial loss or that the respondent would be unable to refund the awarded sum if the appeal succeeded. The respondent, a carpenter with an ongoing business, showed capacity to repay if necessary. The balance of convenience favoured payment to the respondent for services rendered. Consequently, the application for stay of execution was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the claimant/respondent
Orders
- The application for stay of execution is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the claimant/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 412 OF 2012
JOHANA ODIGO APINDI …………….……....…… CLAIMANT
VERSUS
PANESAR’S KENYA LTD …………..……….…... RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Respondent / applicant filed this application dated 22nd May 2014, seeking inter alia orders for stay of execution of the judgment of the Court dated 9th May 2014.
2. The Application is opposed by the Claimant / Respondent by way of replying Affidavit and grounds of opposition filed on 27th May 2014.
3. The law applicable to granting of orders of stay pending appeal is well settled in Kenya. The Application is enjoined to prove to the Court that;
It has an arguable appeal;
If stay is not granted, the appeal will be rendered nugatory in the event that the applicant succeeds or substantial loss will be suffered;
The application is brought without inordinate delay.
4. The applicant filed a notice of Appeal dated 9th May 2014. The Appeal was therefore noted without any undue delay.
The Applicant has not attached a draft memorandum of appeal to enable the Court evaluate whether or not the Appeal noted is arguable or not.
5. In the supporting affidavit of Mr. Timothy Naeku, the advocate in conduct of this matter, he does not allude to any grounds or reasons why the Respondent / Applicant is dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court.
6. The Court is in the circumstances unable to evaluate whether or not the applicant has an arguable appeal or not.
Instead, the Applicant emphasis the issue that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if the stay is not granted and the applicant eventually succeeds in its Appeal.
7. The Court disagrees with this view given that the Applicant is a large construction company involved in the construction of high end Hotels such as Serena, Polana Hotel in Maputo, Mozambique and the subject of the award is Kshs.1,437,300/= being payment for work done by the Claimant/Respondent on behalf of the Applicant in Mozambique, for which work the Court has found the Claimant / Respondent was only paid Kshs.90,000/=.
The court also found that the Claimant is a carpenter of long and good standing and has an ongoing carpentry business.
8. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Claimant/ Respondent would be unable to repay the sum awarded to him in the event the Appeal is successful. To the contrary, the Claimant/ Respondent has ably demonstrated in the Replying Affidavit that the balance of convenience favours that he be paid the sum which is long overdue for services rendered to the Applicant/Respondent company.
Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to establish the preliquisites of granting a stay of execution and the Court dismisses the Application with costs to the Claimant / Respondent.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of October, 2014.
MATHEWS N. NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE