[2024] KEELRC 335 (KLR)

[2024] KEELRC 335 (KLR)

The court found that although the application appeared to repeat issues previously determined by consent, the failure to implement the consent orders regarding the stay of execution and deposit of the decretal sum was not due to the applicant's fault. The respondent's lack of cooperation in opening the joint account...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELRC 335 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Maisha Steel (EA) Ltd; Respondent: Martin Mukwana Wafula
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Appeal E155 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application allowed; stay of execution granted; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
DKN Marete
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Out of Time, Decretal Sum Deposit, Res Judicata, Functus Officio
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Stay of Execution Appeal Out of Time Decretal Sum Deposit Res Judicata Functus Officio

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maisha Steel (EA) Ltd

Appellant

Martin Mukwana Wafula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal is res judicata in light of previous consent orders.
  2. 2 Whether the court is functus officio regarding the stay of execution and leave to appeal out of time.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to comply with timelines was due to its own fault or external factors.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the application appeared to repeat issues previously determined by consent, the failure to implement the consent orders regarding the stay of execution and deposit of the decretal sum was not due to the applicant's fault. The respondent's lack of cooperation in opening the joint account for the decretal sum deposit contributed to the lapse of time and non-compliance with the earlier order. In the interest of justice and to facilitate the applicant's right to a fair hearing on appeal, the court exercised its discretion to allow the application, granting a further stay of execution and deeming the appeal properly filed, with each party to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; stay of execution granted; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is allowed.
  • A stay of execution of the judgment in Employment Cause No. E062 of 2021 is granted pending determination of the appeal.