[2017] KEELRC 803 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay of execution was a repeat of an earlier application that had already been dismissed on the merits. The applicant failed to provide any new or compelling reasons to justify a different outcome. The court emphasized that the claimants had been deprived of the fruits of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 803 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rahab Wothaya Esiromo; Applicant: Joseph Kamau Ruoya; Applicant: Simon Maina Chege; Applicant: Laban Mwangi Chege; Applicant: David Muiru Njoroge; Applicant: Michael Gikonyo Kinyanjui; Applicant: Nobert Omanyo Wabwire; Applicant: Stephen Wambugu Waweru; Respondent: Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Shield Assurance Company Limited; Respondent: Statutory Manager Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited (Under Statutory Management)
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1488 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- NJ Abuodha
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Judgment Enforcement, Abuse of Process
- 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
Rahab Wothaya Esiromo
Applicant
Joseph Kamau Ruoya
Applicant
Simon Maina Chege
Applicant
Laban Mwangi Chege
Applicant
David Muiru Njoroge
Applicant
Michael Gikonyo Kinyanjui
Applicant
Nobert Omanyo Wabwire
Applicant
Stephen Wambugu Waweru
Applicant
Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited
Respondent
Shield Assurance Company Limited
Respondent
Statutory Manager Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited (Under Statutory Management)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 29th April 2013 pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process due to repeated applications for stay.
- 3 Whether there was any order requiring the applicant to settle the decretal sum.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay of execution was a repeat of an earlier application that had already been dismissed on the merits. The applicant failed to provide any new or compelling reasons to justify a different outcome. The court emphasized that the claimants had been deprived of the fruits of their judgment since 2013, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal. The court held that the second application for stay was vexatious and amounted to an abuse of court process. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 15th December 2016 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 1488 OF 2010
RAHAB WOTHAYA ESIROMO
JOSEPH KAMAU RUOYA
SIMON MAINA CHEGE
LABAN MWANGI CHEGE CLAIMANTS
DAVID MUIRU NJOROGE
MICHAEL GIKONYO KINYANJUI
NOBERT OMANYO WABWIRE
STEPHEN WAMBUGU WAWERU
VERSUS
BLUE SHIELD INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED ……………….……..................1ST RESPONDENT
SHIELD ASSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED ………………………............. 2ND RESPONDENT
STATUTORY MANAGER BLUE SHIELD
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(UNDER STATUTORY MANAGEMENT)..........….. 3RD RESPONDENT
M/S Wetende for applicant
Mr. Karimi for respondent
RULING
1. The notice of motion application dated 15th December 2016, seeks stay of execution of the Judgment of the Honourable Lady Justice Onyango delivered on 29th April 2013 on the grounds set out in the notice of motion to wit;
on 9th December 2016, the court dismissed the applicant’s application seeking to stay execution of the Judgment of the Hon. Lady Justice Onyango J. on 29th April 2013 on the grounds inter alia that in the said Judgment, the applicant was not released from the Judgment debt in its entirety.
2. The applicant has filed a notice of appeal against the Ruling of the Honourable Mr. Justice Nderi Nduma delivered on 9th December 2016.
3. That, the Appeal is arguable, and if execution is effected, the intended Appeal will be rendered nugatory. That the applicant has no knowledge of any assets owned by the Judgment debtor and would be unable to recover the decretal sum.
4. The applicant posits that there was no order by the court requiring it to settle the decretal sum and that the same was wrongly issued as there was no Judgment against the applicant to merit any attachment of its property as alleged or at all.
5. In my ruling of 9th December 2016 in which the court declined to grant stay of execution of the Judgment of Lady Justice Maureen Onyango delivered on 29th April 2013, I made a finding of fact that my reading of the Judgment of Lady Justice Onyango did not absorb the 2nd respondent from paying the debt in question and on that basis declined to grant stay of execution.
6. The applicant wants a second bite on the cherry and by doing so, seeks the court to sit on appeal on its own ruling dated 9th December 2016.
7. The claimants have been waiting to enjoy the fruits of their Judgment since 29th April 2013 and in the court’s view, the balance of justice tilts in favour of dismissing the application, there being no tangible explanation as to why there has been such inordinate delay in prosecuting the pending Appeal against the Judgment of Onyango J. delivered on 29th April 2013. This second application for stay borders on vexatious and abuse of court process.
8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs.
Dated and Signed at Nairobi this 18th day of August, 2017.
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Nairobi this 18th day of August, 2017.
JORAM NELSON ABUODHA
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:
………………………………………….………………..
……….……………………………….………………….
………………………………………….………..………
…………………………………………….……………..
………………………………………………….………..