[2022] KEELRC 1250 (KLR)
The court declined the respondent's application for stay of execution and payment by instalments because the application was made over three years after judgment and nearly two years after taxation of costs. The court found that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that granting the application would...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 1250 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hassan Edin Kono; Applicant: Isacko Abakamano Harsama; Applicant: Abdullahi Isack Amaru; Respondent: Resource Protection Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1254 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Payment by Instalments
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Payment by Instalments, Decretal Sum Enforcement
- 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
Hassan Edin Kono
Applicant
Isacko Abakamano Harsama
Applicant
Abdullahi Isack Amaru
Applicant
Resource Protection Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Payment by Instalments
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent should be granted a stay of execution of judgment delivered on 12th July 2019.
- 2 Whether the respondent should be allowed to pay the decretal sum by monthly instalments.
- 3 Whether the delay in making the application prejudices the claimants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined the respondent's application for stay of execution and payment by instalments because the application was made over three years after judgment and nearly two years after taxation of costs. The court found that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that granting the application would prejudice the claimants, who had already waited many years for payment following the termination of their employment. The respondent should have sought such orders promptly after judgment or taxation. The court exercised its discretion against the respondent, prioritizing the claimants' right to timely satisfaction of the judgment.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 9th May 2022 is declined.
- Costs to the claimants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Kono & 2 others v Resource Protection Ltd (Cause 1254 of 2014) [2022] KEELRC 1250 (KLR) (22 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELRC 1250 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Cause 1254 of 2014
J Rika, J
July 22, 2022
Between
Hassan Edin Kono
1st Claimant
Isacko Abakamano Harsama
2nd Claimant
Abdullahi Isack Amaru
3rd Claimant
and
Resource Protection Ltd
Respondent
Ruling
1. The Respondent applies, through its Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2022, for stay of execution of Judgment delivered on 12th July 2019; leave to allow the Respondent to pay the decretal sum of Kshs. 1,512,943 by monthly instalments of Kshs. 150,000 to each Claimant, to be paid from the date of this Ruling, until final settlement; the Claimants are restrained from executing for as long as the Respondent pays the said instalments; any other order; and costs in the cause.
2. The Application is opposed through the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 1st Claimant on 20th June 2022.
3. It was agreed by the Parties that the Application is considered on the strength of their Affidavits and Submissions. The matter was last mentioned on 28th June 2022, when Parties confirmed filing and service of Submissions.
The Court finds: - 4. The Application is declined for reasons stated below.
5. Judgment was delivered over 3 years ago, on 12th July 2019.
6. The Bill of Costs was taxed on 3rd September 2020.
7. The Claimants’ contracts of employment were terminated in 2013, some 9 years ago.
8. They were paid nothing on termination.
9. The Claim was filed in 2014, 8 years ago.
10. If the Respondent wished to liquidate the decretal amount by instalments, the Application should have been made in 2019 when Judgment was delivered, or 2020 after costs were taxed.
11. The Claimants would be prejudiced by having to receive their decretal sums in dribs and drabs, many years after the Court awarded them these sums.It is Ordered: -a.The Application dated 9th May 2022 is declined.b.Costs to the Claimants.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT CHAKA, UNDER THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND JUDICIARY COVID-19 GUIDELINES, THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 2022. JAMES RIKAJUDGE