[2015] KEELRC 1560 (KLR)

[2015] KEELRC 1560 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal was arguable, as no grounds or merits of the appeal were disclosed in the application or supporting affidavit. Furthermore, the court held that the judgment was for a sum of money and there was no evidence that the respondent would be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELRC 1560 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: Stanley Mombo Amuti; Respondent: National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 1528 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Terminal Benefits, Appeal Requirements
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Stay of Execution Terminal Benefits Appeal Requirements

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

Stanley Mombo Amuti

Claimant

National Water Conservation & Pipeline Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal is arguable.
  3. 3 Whether failure to grant stay would render the appeal nugatory.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal was arguable, as no grounds or merits of the appeal were disclosed in the application or supporting affidavit. Furthermore, the court held that the judgment was for a sum of money and there was no evidence that the respondent would be unable to repay the amount if the appeal succeeded. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the requirements for the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

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