[2015] KEELRC 1584 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 1584 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay pending appeal lacked merit because the notice of appeal was filed out of time and no application for enlargement of time had been made. The applicant's advocate was properly served but failed to appear, and the subsequent withdrawal of counsel did not justify the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 1584 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Saum Achieng’ Otieno; Respondent: Rodentkil Cleaning Company Limited
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 285(N) of 2009
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Default Judgment, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Default Judgment Service of Process

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saum Achieng’ Otieno

Claimant

Rodentkil Cleaning Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay Pending Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the application for stay pending appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of appeal was filed within the prescribed time.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to appear was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay pending appeal lacked merit because the notice of appeal was filed out of time and no application for enlargement of time had been made. The applicant's advocate was properly served but failed to appear, and the subsequent withdrawal of counsel did not justify the default. The court held that the application amounted to an abuse of process intended to deny the claimant the fruits of judgment, and therefore dismissed the application with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for stay pending appeal is dismissed with costs.