[2018] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)

The court found that although the application for stay was filed more than three months after judgment, the delay was excused because the claimants had not taken any steps towards execution. The court held that substantial loss would result if stay was denied, as the applicants would be unable to recover the decreed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Sammy Nzioka Bita; Claimant: Mutio George Mutio; Claimant: Silvester Otieno; Claimant: Victor Ochieng; Respondent: Casablanca Restaurant Club; Respondent: Victor Waudi t/a Casablanca Restaurant Club; Respondent: Casablanca Holdings Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 397 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Notice of Motion for stay of execution pending appeal allowed; no order as to costs.
Judges
AN Makau, L Ndolo
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Substantial Loss, Security for Due Performance, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Substantial Loss Security for Due Performance 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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sammy Nzioka Bita

Claimant

Mutio George Mutio

Claimant

Silvester Otieno

Claimant

Victor Ochieng

Claimant

Casablanca Restaurant Club

Respondent

Victor Waudi t/a Casablanca Restaurant Club

Respondent

Casablanca Holdings Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for granting stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the application for stay was unreasonable and if it should be excused.
  3. 3 Whether substantial loss will result if stay is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the application for stay was filed more than three months after judgment, the delay was excused because the claimants had not taken any steps towards execution. The court held that substantial loss would result if stay was denied, as the applicants would be unable to recover the decreed sum if the appeal succeeded and the claimants could not refund it. Since the claimants did not oppose the application or demand security, the court did not order any security for due performance. Consequently, the application for stay of execution pending appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion for stay of execution pending appeal allowed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 28/4/2017 is granted pending appeal.
  • No order as to costs.