[2014] KEELRC 567 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate any recondite matters of law or pure points of law in its intended appeal, as required by section 17(2) of the Industrial Court Act No. 20 of 2011. No draft memorandum of appeal was provided, and the supporting affidavit and submissions did not reveal any...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 567 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Seth Panyako; Respondent: The Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 1292 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- application for stay of execution rejected
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Appeal Rights, Industrial Court Awards
- 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
Seth Panyako
Claimant
The Kenya Union of Domestic, Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent has demonstrated sufficient grounds in law to warrant a stay of execution of the award pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal raises pure points of law as required under section 17(2) of the Industrial Court Act No. 20 of 2011.
- 3 Whether the respondent's application for stay is merely intended to delay the administration of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to demonstrate any recondite matters of law or pure points of law in its intended appeal, as required by section 17(2) of the Industrial Court Act No. 20 of 2011. No draft memorandum of appeal was provided, and the supporting affidavit and submissions did not reveal any substantial legal issues. The interim stay of execution had lapsed, and the respondent did not seek its extension or promptly notify the claimant. The court also noted that the claimant was financially capable of refunding the award if the appeal succeeded, negating any risk of irreparable loss to the respondent. The application for stay was therefore rejected as lacking merit and...
Court Disposition
application for stay of execution rejected
Orders
- The application dated 18th December 2013 is rejected.
- No order on the costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 1292 OF 2011
BETWEEN
SETH PANYAKO….………………………………………………………………......CLAIMANT
VERSUS
THE KENYA UNION OF DOMESTIC, HOTELS, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITALS AND ALLIED WORKERS…..…RESPONDENT
RULING
Award in this Cause was read in favour of the Claimant, on 10th December 2013. The Respondent was ordered to pay to the Claimant general damages of Kshs.850,000, within 30 days of the delivery of the Award.
On 11th December 2013, the Respondent lodged its Notice of Appeal at the Industrial Court Registry. This was followed up by an Application for Stay of Execution, filed on 20th December 2013.
The Application was brought before the Court under Certificate of Urgency on 20th December 2013, and the Court granted interim order for stay of execution, pending hearing inter partes on 14th January 2014.
The respondent had not served the Claimant by 14th January 2014. The interim order for stay of execution lapsed on 14th January 2014.
The Respondent scheduled its Application at the Registry, for hearing on 4th March 2014. Hearing proceeded on 4th March 2014.
The Respondent relies on the Supporting Affidavit of its General Secretary Albert Njeru, sworn on 18th December 2013, and on further grounds stated on the face of the Application.
The Claimant adopts Grounds of Opposition filed on 20th January 2014.
Upon reading the contents of the Application and the Grounds of Opposition; and Upon hearing the Submissions made by Counsel for the Respondent and by the Claimant acting in Person; the Court Finds and Orders:-
1. The Respondent has not demonstrated recondite matters of law raised by its intended Appeal, as envisaged under section 17(2) of the Industrial Court Act No. 20 of 2011. No Draft Memorandum of Appeal was availed to this Court, and no pure points of Law are revealed in the Supporting Affidavit, or Submissions made by the Respondent in Court.
2. An Appeal from this Court to the Court of Appeal under the above Law, must be confined to matters of Law. In arguing an Application for Stay of Execution, such matters must be demonstrated. The law does not intend that stay of execution, operates as a transfer of jurisdiction, where Parties take their legal and factual differences to the Superior Court for a re-hearing. The right of appeal is a limited right.
3. The interim stay of execution order lapsed on 14th January 2014. The Award was to be satisfied within 30 days of its delivery. The Respondent did not seek extension of the order, and delayed in notifying the Claimant on the filing and the hearing of the Application. The 1st Ground of Opposition, that the Application is aimed at delaying the administration of justice therefore, appears to have merit.
4. Lastly, the Claimant is himself a General Secretary of a notable Trade Union, and like Mr. Albert Njeru, can hardly be said to be a man of straw who would struggle or fail to repay the sum of Kshs.850,000, in event the Appeal is successful. There are no grounds to warrant stay of execution of the Award. IT IS ORDERED:-
(a) The Application dated 18th December 2013 is rejected.
(b) No order on the costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 31st day of March 2014
James Rika
Judge