[2018] KEELRC 595 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent/Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would be suffered if stay was not granted and did not furnish security as required under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The grounds advanced for the grant of stay did not demonstrate the viability of the intended...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 595 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Joseph Muriithi Njeru; Respondent: The County Government of Kirinyaga
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 192 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay dismissed with costs to the claimant
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Costs, Substantial Loss, Deployment Dispute
- 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
Joseph Muriithi Njeru
Claimant
The County Government of Kirinyaga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent/Applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the Applicant has demonstrated substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the Applicant has complied with the requirement to furnish security for the due performance of the decree.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent/Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss that would be suffered if stay was not granted and did not furnish security as required under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The grounds advanced for the grant of stay did not demonstrate the viability of the intended appeal. The court held that the application for stay lacked merit and dismissed it with costs to the Claimant.
Court Disposition
application for stay dismissed with costs to the claimant
Orders
- The motion seeking stay is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI
CAUSE NO. 192 OF 2018
JOSEPH MURIITHI NJERU................CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF
KIRINYAGA.......................................RESPONDENT /APPLICANT
RULING
1. The motion dated 9th August 2018 seeking stay is fit for dismissal. The Respondent/Applicant asserts that if stay is not granted the appeal will be rendered nugatory. The grounds advanced for its grant do not demonstrate the viability of the intended appeal. The Respondent asserts the position that is in issue is vacant. The Claimant’s position is not vacant and if the position the Respondent intended to fill is vacant then it is upon Respondent to fill the said position as the Claimant sought and obtained relief against his deployment to another office per the Ruling of 11th July 2018. In Order 42 Rule 6, the Applicant is not expected to wait to be asked to furnish security but should furnish security per Order 42 (Rule (6) (2) (a) & (6). There is no demonstration of substantial loss to be suffered by the Respondent.
2. In the premises the grant of stay is denied and the motion seeking stay is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 14th day of November 2018
Nzioki wa Makau
JUDGE