[2017] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)

[2017] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide any substantive grounds to support the application for stay of execution and setting aside of the judgment. The supporting affidavit contained statements that should have been included in a defence, which was never filed. No explanation was given for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELRC 1422 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Moses Wanjima Mwangi; Respondent: Vert Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 483 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Stay of Execution, Discharge Voucher, Estoppel, Ex Parte Hearing
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Setting Aside Judgment Stay of Execution Discharge Voucher Estoppel Ex Parte Hearing

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Wanjima Mwangi

Claimant

Vert Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment and for Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has provided sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte judgment entered against it.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the execution of a discharge voucher by the claimant bars him from pursuing the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide any substantive grounds to support the application for stay of execution and setting aside of the judgment. The supporting affidavit contained statements that should have been included in a defence, which was never filed. No explanation was given for the respondent's failure to file a defence or for the delay in bringing the application. The court held that the respondent's application was without merit and dismissed it with costs to the claimant. The interim orders previously granted were vacated.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The respondent's application dated 29th November 2016 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.
  • The interim orders granted on 23rd December 2016 are vacated.