[2019] KEELRC 459 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent had been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings at every stage but failed to do so. Previous applications for stay had already been granted, and granting further stay or leave would unjustly delay the Claimants' right to enjoy the fruits of judgment and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 459 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Osielo Okoth O’King; Claimant: Stephen M. Mulinge; Claimant: Harry Randu Banks; Claimant: Juma Waziri Kingi; Respondent: Owners of Motor Vessel Nasibu, Nasibu Fishing Company Ltd.
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 598 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time and Stay Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Stay of Execution, Ex Parte Judgment, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Osielo Okoth O’King
Claimant
Stephen M. Mulinge
Claimant
Harry Randu Banks
Claimant
Juma Waziri Kingi
Claimant
Owners of Motor Vessel Nasibu, Nasibu Fishing Company Ltd.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Cause / Ruling on Application to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time and Stay Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondent should be granted leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether an order for stay of execution of judgment should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent had been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the proceedings at every stage but failed to do so. Previous applications for stay had already been granted, and granting further stay or leave would unjustly delay the Claimants' right to enjoy the fruits of judgment and undermine the principle of expeditious justice. The Respondent did not provide sufficient cause for the delay in seeking leave to appeal out of time, nor did it justify the need for a further stay of execution. The court exercised its discretion against the Respondent, prioritizing the Claimants' right to fair and expeditious administration of justice.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Application filed by the Respondent on 16th July 2019 is rejected.
- Costs to the Claimants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR
RELATIONS COURT AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NUMBER 598 OF 2017
BETWEEN
OSIELO OKOTH O’KING
STEPHEN M. MULINGE
HARRY RANDU BANKS
JUMA WAZIRI KINGI………………………………………………………………….………..CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
A CLAIM IN REM AGAINST THE OWNERS OF
MOTOR VESSEL NASIBU, NASIBU FISHING COMPANY LTD.….......………….…RESPONDENT
Rika J
Court Assistant: Benjamin Kombe
Wachira King’ang’a & Company Advocates for the Claimant
Oduor Siminyu & Company Advocates for the Respondent
_______________________________________________
RULING
1. Ex parte Judgment was delivered in favour of the Claimants on 15th March 2019.
2. An Application dated 30th April 2019, filed by the Respondent, seeking to set aside the Judgment, was declined in a Ruling delivered on 13th June 2019.
3. The Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal dated 24th June 2019, expressing its intention to appeal against the Ruling.
4. On 16th July 2013, the Respondent filed an Application asking for leave to lodge a Notice of Appeal out of time, with respect to the ex parte Judgment of 15th March 2019. The Application seeks also, an order staying execution of Judgment.
5. Supported by the Affidavit of Mumin Ali Mumin sworn on 16th July 2019, the Application rehashes similar grounds in support, to the grounds raised in the Application dated 30th April 2019.
6. Parties agreed to have the latest Application considered and determined through written Submissions.
7. The Court finds no reason to justify grant of leave to file Notice of Appeal out of time, or to grant an order for stay of execution. The record shows adequate opportunity has been granted to the Respondent to state its position, at every turn in the proceedings. Orders of stay of execution of Judgment have issued in the past, and further issue, would deny the Claimants their right to fair and expeditious administration of justice. The Respondent opted not to participate in the proceedings.
IT IS ORDERED:-
(a) The Application filed by the Respondent on 16th July 2019 is rejected.
(b) Costs to the Claimants.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 25th day of October, 2019.
James Rika
Judge