[2016] KEELRC 240 (KLR)

[2016] KEELRC 240 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable appeal and that there was a real risk the claimant would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, thus justifying a stay of execution. However, considering the claimant had awaited payment of terminal benefits since 2013, the court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELRC 240 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Solomon Githae Irungu; Respondent: Nairobi Water & Sewerage Company
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1931 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Conditional stay of execution granted.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Terminal Benefits, Wrongful Dismissal, Compensation Awards
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Stay of Execution Terminal Benefits Wrongful Dismissal Compensation Awards

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Githae Irungu

Claimant

Nairobi Water & Sewerage Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a stay of execution of the judgment pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable appeal and risk of irreparable harm if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the claimant would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated an arguable appeal and that there was a real risk the claimant would be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, thus justifying a stay of execution. However, considering the claimant had awaited payment of terminal benefits since 2013, the court held that justice required the claimant to enjoy part of the judgment proceeds pending appeal. Accordingly, the court granted a conditional stay: the claimant was to be paid specified sums representing certain terminal benefits within fourteen days, while the balance of the decretal sum was to be deposited with the court. Failure by the applicant to comply within the stipulated...

Court Disposition

Conditional stay of execution granted.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 29th June 2016 is granted except for specified payments.
  • Applicant to pay the claimant Kshs.562,548.88 within fourteen (14) days of the ruling.