[2022] KEELRC 14722 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, as they were not served with a notice of judgment delivery and only became aware of the judgment after being informed by the respondent's advocates. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELRC 14722 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Naiberi River Campsite & Resort; Respondent: Andrew Injendi Jomo
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause E022 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- Application for extension of time to appeal allowed; conditional stay of execution granted.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Judgment Delivery Notice, Decretal Sum, Appeal Procedure
- 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
Naiberi River Campsite & Resort
Applicant
Andrew Injendi Jomo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient cause for extension of time to file an appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order of stay of execution of the decree pending appeal.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated substantial loss or offered security to warrant stay of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, as they were not served with a notice of judgment delivery and only became aware of the judgment after being informed by the respondent's advocates. The court exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing and serving the appeal by 30 days from the date of the ruling. Regarding the stay of execution, the court noted that the application as drafted only sought stay pending the hearing of the application inter partes, not pending appeal. However, in the interest of time and to avoid unnecessary costs, the court granted a conditional stay of execution on the basis that the...
Court Disposition
Application for extension of time to appeal allowed; conditional stay of execution granted.
Orders
- Time for the applicant to file and serve the appeal is extended by 30 days from the date of this ruling.
- Conditional stay of execution granted on the condition that the decretal sum be deposited in court within 30 days; in default, execution to issue.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT ELDORET
CAUSE NO. E022 OF 2021
NAIBERI RIVER CAMPSITE & RESORT....CLAIMANT
VERSUS
ANDREW INJENDI JOMO..........................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By motion dated October, 2021 the applicant sought orders among others that:
a. There be an order of stay of execution of the decree in Eldoret Chief Magistrate Employment and Labour Relations Cause No. 147 of 2019 pending the hearing of this application inter-parties.
b.This Honourable Court to grant Applicant leave to file an appeal out of time against the judgment in Eldoret Chief Magistrate Employment and Labour Relations Cause No. 147 of 2019 delivered on 16th September, 2021.
2. The application was supported by the affidavit of Rebecca Cheluget in which she deponed among others that:
a. That I am the Human Resource Manager of the Applicant.
b. That I am conversant with the facts of this case and I am therefore duly competent to sear this affidavit in support of the application ere before this Honourable Court.
c. That the respondent herein filed a claim against the Applicant being Eldoret Chief Magistrate Employment and Labour Relations Cause No. 147 of 2019 seeking various reliefs.
d. That the matter proceeded to hearing and both parties testified.
e. That the cause was set down for judgment on 25th May, 2021, 2nd of June 2021 and later on 8th of June, 2021 when judgment was not ready.
f. That the trial court thereafter notified the parties that judgment will be delivered on notice.
g. That I am informed by my advocates on record which information I verily believe to be true that they have never been issued with a notice for delivery of judgment.
h. That I am further informed by my advocates on record that on 22nd October, 2021 they received a letter dated 19th October, 2021 from the Respondent’s advocates informing them that judgment was delivered on 16th September 2021 in favour of the respondent and respondents advocate was demanding for payment of the Decretal sum. Annexed is a letter dated 19th March 2021 as annexure RC 1.
i. That I am further informed by our advocates on record which information I verily believe to be true that they immediately proceeded to peruse the court file and found a hand written judgment that is not dated. Annexed is a copy of the hand written judgment marked as annexure RC2.
j. That I am further informed by our advocates on record that they then requested for the judgment to be typed for purposes of filing this application. annexed is copy of the typed judgment marked as annexure RC 3.
k. That the applicant is aggrieved by the whole judgment of the lower court and is desirous of filing an appeal to this Honourable Court.
l. That the time for filing a appeal has however since lapsed.
m. That the applicant has a good appeal that raises triable issue and has high chances of success. Annexed is a copy of the draft memorandum of appeal marked as annexure RC 4.
3. The respondent opposed the application and filed a Replying Affidavit stating among others that:
a. That on 25th February, 2020, the matter proceeded in presence of my advocates on record and the Applicant’s advocate and a date for mention to confirm filling of submission of was taken by consent and thereafter a dated for delivery of judgment was taken.
b. That vide a notice dated 26th July, 2021, a notice was issued to the effect that judgment in Eldoret CC No. 147/2019 could be delivered by the Eldoret Chief Magistrate, Court 1, on behalf of the trial court. The said notice was posted on the Eldoret Bar-Bench group which the Applicant’s advocates are members. See annexure marked AIJ 1. )
c. That my advocates on record extracted a decree on 19th October, 2021 and informed the respondent of the decretal sum vide a letter dated 19th October, 2021. See Annexure marked AIJ2. )
d. That the applicant’s advocates on record were aware that the judgment would be delivered on notice but choose not keep checking with the registry to confirm if the judgment was delivered or not.
e. That the respondent has never bothered to check on the progress of the matter since 25th May, 2021 when the matter came up for mention to confirm filing of submissions.
f. That nothing precluded the applicant from inquiring in the registry whether judgment had been delivered or not or even trying to check on the online judiciary case tracking system the progress of the matter. The respondent’s application is not brought in good faith since they waited up to the last minute for them to act on the matter.
g. that the instant application before court has only been prompted by the intention to begin execution proceedings and nothing else.
h. That in response to the grounds on the face of the application. I wish to state as follows:-
i. That the applicant has not demonstrated substantial loss at all. A mere statement that substantial loss shall be suffered is not enough ground to warrant stay of execution.
ii. No sufficient cause has been tendered in court to warrant grant of stay of execution.
iii. No security has been offered by the applicant.
i. That I know on my own knowledge that no appeal has so far been lodged and/or filed by the respondent against the Judgment on record. The applicant has annexed unfiled memorandum of appeal confirming that the same has been made up with the aim of seeking orders of stay of execution. (See Respondent’s annexure marked “RC4”.
4. The Court has carefully considered the application, the grounds upon which is brought and the supporting affidavits and is persuaded that reasonable explanation has been offered by the applicant why the appeal was not filed on time. The Court therefore extends time for the applicant to file and serve the appeal within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
5. On the issue of stay the application as drafted did not seek stay of execution pending appeal. It sought stay of execution pending the hearing of this application inter partes.
6. However, in the interest of time and saving of costs of filing another application, the Court will exercise its discretion and under order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules make a conditional order of stay that the decretal sum be deposited in Courts within 30 days of the ruling herein. In default execution to issue.
7. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
ABUODHA NELSON JORUM
JUDGE ELRC