[2017] KEELRC 802 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 802 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent/applicant failed to provide a cogent or justifiable reason for non-attendance at the hearing of the application for stay of execution. There was inordinate delay in prosecuting the application, with the respondent failing to act on ex parte orders for approximately eleven months...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 802 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Joseph Maina Gichuhi; Respondent: Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 2132 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal of Stay Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Reinstatement of Application, Delay in Prosecution, Appeals Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Reinstatement of Application Delay in Prosecution Appeals Process

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Maina Gichuhi

Claimant

Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Dismissal of Stay Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent/applicant has provided sufficient reason to set aside the dismissal of its application for stay of execution.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the application for stay is justified or amounts to inordinate delay prejudicial to the claimant.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a filed appeal justifies the dismissal of the application for stay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent/applicant failed to provide a cogent or justifiable reason for non-attendance at the hearing of the application for stay of execution. There was inordinate delay in prosecuting the application, with the respondent failing to act on ex parte orders for approximately eleven months and not filing an appeal more than a year after judgment. The absence of a pending appeal and repeated non-attendance at scheduled hearings demonstrated a lack of diligence. The court applied the principle that procedural rules regarding timelines for appeals are mandatory and that unexplained delay is prejudicial to the opposing party and undermines the administration of...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside the dismissal of the application for stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the claimant.