[2022] KEELRC 12871 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 12871 (KLR)

The court found that the reasons advanced by the Respondent/Applicant—namely, the size of the decretal sum and the Respondent's parastatal status—were insufficient to warrant a reduction in the security to be deposited. The decretal sum arose from a valid judgment, and the interests of justice required that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 12871 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Tom Franx Mzaliwa Osiro; Respondent: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd.
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1938 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Security for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for partial security dismissed; full security ordered as condition for stay.
Judges
L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Security for Decretal Sum, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Stay of Execution Security for Decretal Sum Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Franx Mzaliwa Osiro

Applicant

Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Security for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent/Applicant should be ordered to deposit the entire decretal sum or only 50% as security pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the reasons advanced by the Respondent/Applicant justify partial security.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reasons advanced by the Respondent/Applicant—namely, the size of the decretal sum and the Respondent's parastatal status—were insufficient to warrant a reduction in the security to be deposited. The decretal sum arose from a valid judgment, and the interests of justice required that the entire amount be secured to protect the Claimant/Respondent's rights pending appeal. Accordingly, the Respondent/Applicant was ordered to deposit the entire decretal sum in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the parties' advocates within 45 days, failing which the stay would lapse automatically and the Claimant/Respondent would be at liberty to execute the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application for partial security dismissed; full security ordered as condition for stay.

Orders

  • The Respondent/Applicant is directed to deposit the entire decretal sum in an interest earning account in the joint names of the parties’ Advocates within 45 days from the date of the ruling.
  • Failure to comply with this condition will lead to an automatic lapse of the stay granted and the Claimant/Respondent will be at liberty to execute without further orders.