[2018] KEELRC 1597 (KLR)
The court found that the application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was brought only one day after the expiry of the statutory period and that the delay was not inordinate. No substantial prejudice would be suffered by the respondents that could not be remedied by costs. Therefore, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1597 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Ogonji & 31 Others; Respondent: Kisumu County Government; Respondent: Kisumu County Public Service Board
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 21 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- partly allowed and partly dismissed
- Judges
- MN Nduma
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Arrears of Salary, Regularization of Employment
- 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
Samuel Ogonji & 31 Others
Applicant
Kisumu County Government
Respondent
Kisumu County Public Service Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution pending appeal.
- 3 Whether the respondents would suffer substantial or irreparable loss if stay is not granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was brought only one day after the expiry of the statutory period and that the delay was not inordinate. No substantial prejudice would be suffered by the respondents that could not be remedied by costs. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension. However, regarding the application for stay of execution, the court held that the respondents had failed to comply with the judgment and had resorted to self-help without seeking court orders. The court was not satisfied that the respondents would suffer irreparable loss by formalizing the employment of employees still in their...
Court Disposition
partly allowed and partly dismissed
Orders
- Leave to file notice of appeal out of time is granted; same to be filed within 7 days of this ruling.
- Application for stay of execution pending appeal is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT KISUMU
CAUSE NO. 21 OF 2014
(Before Hon. Justice Mathews N. Nduma)
SAMUEL OGONJI & 31 OTHERS .......................................................CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
KISUMU COUNTY GOVERNMENT..........................................1ST RESPONDENT
KISUMU COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD......................2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. Applicant, in the application dated 3rd November, 2017 seeks extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. The matter is guided by section 7 of the Appellate jurisdiction Act, Cap 9 Laws of Kenya. The Act is to be construed to apply to the courts of equal status and reads as follows:-
“The High Court may extend time for giving notice of intention to appeal from a Judgment of the High Court or for making an application for leave to appeal or for a certificate that the case is fit for appeal, notwithstanding that the time for giving such notice or making such appeal may have already expired.”
2. The guidelines to be followed in an application of this nature were set out by the Supreme court in the case of Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat Vs IEBC & 7 others SC Application No. 16 of 2014 as follows:-
(a) Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court.
(b) The party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court.
(c) As to whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case by case basis.
(d) Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the court.
(e) Whether there will be any prejudice to be suffered by the Respondents if the extension is granted.
(f) The application should have been brought without undue delay; and
(g) In certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be considered for extending time.
3. The Application was brought one day upon expiry of 14 days. The delay was not inordinate. No substantial prejudice would be suffered by the Respondent that cannot be remedied by way of costs. The grant of the application is discretionary. The Court deems it fit to grant the application.
4. With regard to the issue of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the intended Appeal, the court notes that Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that no appeal or second appeal shall operate as a stay of extension. The Court has a discretion to grant stay. The considerations include that the application is brought without undue delay, the court is satisfied that substantial loss would be occasioned the applicant if the application is not granted, the applicant to provide such security as the court deems fit and that the intended appeal is arguable.
5. The judgment delivered on 19th October, 2017 is for payment of arrear salary for the Claimants for September 2016 to October 2017 to be tabulated by the County Labour Officer Kisumu.
6. The Respondents were directed to immediately issue to the Claimants letters of appointment absorbing them into regular terms of employment with effect from 1st November, 2017.
7. The Respondents were to pay costs of the suit. The Respondents have failed to comply with the terms of the judgment regarding employees who are still in their employ. In the court’s view, the Respondents resorted to self-help without obtaining orders from this court.
8. This court refuses to exercise its discretion in favour of a party who already has dirty hands.
9. The court is not satisfied that the Respondents will suffer irreparable loss by formalizing employment of employees who are still working for them in compliance with section 37 of the Employment Act, 2007.
10. Accordingly, the application for stay of execution is refused.
11. The final orders of the court are as follows:-
(a) Leave to file notice of appeal out of time is granted. Same be filed within 7 days of this Ruling.
(b) Application for stay of execution pending appeal is refused.
Dated and Signed in Kisumu this 5th day of July, 2018
Mathews N. Nduma
Judge
Appearances
Mr. Mwamu for Claimant
Mr. Opondo for 1st Respondent
Chrispo – Court Clerk