[2018] KEELRC 1760 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1760 (KLR)

The court held that the Respondent's application for review of the order dismissing its earlier application for stay of execution did not meet the threshold for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The deposit of the decretal sum in court, while a demonstration of willingness to comply, did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1760 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Chege Kanja; Plaintiff: Edward Mwaura Karanja; Plaintiff: Simon Ngugi Mburu; Plaintiff: Samson Karoki Ndungu; Plaintiff: Paul Nzioki Ndali; Plaintiff: Peter Karanja Kimotho; Plaintiff: Joseph Kuria Mburu; Defendant: China Wu Yi Co. Ltd
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 24 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the claimants
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Review of Judgment Stay of Execution Security for Due Performance

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

Parties

Peter Chege Kanja

Plaintiff

Edward Mwaura Karanja

Plaintiff

Simon Ngugi Mburu

Plaintiff

Samson Karoki Ndungu

Plaintiff

Paul Nzioki Ndali

Plaintiff

Peter Karanja Kimotho

Plaintiff

Joseph Kuria Mburu

Plaintiff

China Wu Yi Co. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Execution

  1. 1 Whether the court should review its order dismissing the application for stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the deposit of the decretal sum in court constitutes new and relevant information justifying review.
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of a stay application at the Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Respondent's application for review of the order dismissing its earlier application for stay of execution did not meet the threshold for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The deposit of the decretal sum in court, while a demonstration of willingness to comply, did not constitute new and important evidence or matter that was not within the Respondent's knowledge at the time of the original application. The court further found that it had previously declined to grant a stay of execution pending appeal on more than one occasion, and the Respondent had not demonstrated any statutory or equitable basis for the court to grant a stay pending the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the claimants

Orders

  • The application dated 17 April 2018 is dismissed with costs to the Claimants.
  • The Deputy Registrar is directed to release the monies deposited in court to the Claimants in terms of the decree issued on 23 August 2017.