[2014] KEELRC 200 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that the claimants would be unable to refund the judgment sum if the appeal succeeded. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to show the decree holder's inability to repay, not the other way around. Since the impugned judgment was a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 200 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Racheal Nungare & 15 Others; Respondent: Bake "N" Bite Limited; Interested Party: Bakery, Confectionery, Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 220 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Notice of Motion for stay pending appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Money Decree, Burden of Proof, Substantial Loss, Security for Stay
- 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
Racheal Nungare & 15 Others
Applicant
Bake "N" Bite Limited
Respondent
Bakery, Confectionery, Food Manufacturing & Allied Workers Union
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has met the requirements for grant of stay pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
- 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the decree holder cannot refund the judgment sum if the appeal succeeds.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to adduce evidence demonstrating that the claimants would be unable to refund the judgment sum if the appeal succeeded. The burden of proof lies with the applicant to show the decree holder's inability to repay, not the other way around. Since the impugned judgment was a money decree and no evidence of inability to refund was provided, the court declined to grant a stay. The other criteria for stay were not considered necessary to address in light of this finding.
Court Disposition
Notice of Motion for stay pending appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 23.6.2014 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CAUSE NO. 220 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF : THE EMPLOYMENT ACT, 2007 & THE LABOUR INSTITUTIONS ACT, 2007
RACHEAL NUNGARE & 15 OTHERS..........................................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
BAKE "N" BITE LIMITED.........................................................RESPONDENT
BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY,FOOD
MANUFACTURING &ALLIED WORKERS UNION............................................................................... INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
Introduction
1. This is a Notice of Motion dated 23. 6.2014 brought by the Respondent in the suit (hereinafter called the Applicant). It seeks stay pending Appeal lodged against the whole judgment of this court dated 30. 5.2014. According to the Applicant, unless stay is ordered she will suffer irreparable loss. The motion is supported by affidavit sworn by Seif Muhammed Seif sworn on 23. 6.2014. The gist of the affidavit is that the Applicant's Appeal is not frivolous and has got high chances of success which will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted. The Applicant committed herself to abide to any condition for stay that the court may order.
2. The Claimants have opposed the motion by the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 1st Claimant on 24. 6.2014. The gist of the Replying Affidavit is that the Applicant has met the fundamental requirements for granting stay pending appeal by this court. According to the Claimants, the Applicant has no appeal with good chances of success and the motion is only a delaying tactic meant to deny the Claimant the enjoyment of the fruit of their suit. It is also a delaying tactic to allow the Applicant close down her business.
3. The motion was disposed of by way of written submissions which the court has carefully considered.
Analysis and Determination
4. It is not in dispute that the Applicant being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment of this court filed a Notice of Appeal in exercise of her right of appeal. The issue for determination herein is whether the Notice of Motion has met the essential requirements for the grant of stay pending appeal. The criteria precedent before granting stay by the trial court were set out by the Court of Appeal in Halai & Another vs. Thorton & Turpin (1963) Ltd [1990] KLR 365 in the following terms:
“The High Court's discretion to order a stay of execution of its order or decree is fettered by three conditions. Firstly the applicant must establish a sufficient cause, secondly the court must be satisfied that substantial loss would ensue from a refusal to grant stay and thirdly the applicant must furnish security. The application must of course be made without unreasonable delay.”
The foregoing criteria are also provided for under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
5. There is no doubt that the motion for the stay was brought without undue delay after the delivery of the impugned judgment. As to whether there is an appeal with good chances of success is not for this court to decide. What is important to decide is whether the Applicant is likely to suffer substantial loss if stay is declined. In other words the court must assess the possibility of the Applicant's appeal becoming nugatory if it succeeds after execution of the impugned judgment. The court can only do so if there is evidence adduced to prove that the Claimant (Decree Holder) will not be able to refund the judgment debt if the appeal succeeds. In this case no evidence was adduced to prove that the Claimants will not be able to refund the judgment debtor if the Appeal succeeds. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the Decree Holder to prove his or her ability to repay the judgment debt. It is always upon the Applicant to prove the Decree Holder's inability to repay the decretal sum in the event the appeal succeeds after execution.
6. In view of the foregoing finding the court does not need to deal with the other aforesaid criteria because the impugned judgment is a money decree whereby the Decree Holder can always refund the money if the appeal succeeds. Consequently the stay order is declined because the criteria of inability to repay the judgment debt has not been proved.
Disposition
7. The Notice of Motion dated 23. 6.2014 is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered in Mombasa this 10th day of October, 2014.
O.N. Makau
Judge