[2021] KEELRC 1138 (KLR)
The court found that the lower court's judgment did not quantify the sums due to the claimants, creating uncertainty for the appellant regarding the actual amount to be paid. This lack of specificity justified the grant of a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, as the appellant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELRC 1138 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Sunset Boulevard Management Company Phase 1 Limited; Respondent: Samson Odwory Wanjala; Respondent: Vincent Otwanistima; Respondent: Peter Odari Olumula; Respondent: Jane Achieng Omondi; Respondent: Elizabeth Chela; Respondent: Pamela Boke Moroa; Respondent: Morine Mutheu Mulinge; Respondent: Mackline Sophie Matifari; Respondent: Alex Changirwa Galegwa
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Appeal E072 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling
- Outcome
- stay of execution granted pending appeal
- Judges
- AN Makau
- Legal Topics
- Redundancy Claims, Stay of Execution, Quantification of Awards, Unfair Termination, Payment in Lieu of Notice
- 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
Sunset Boulevard Management Company Phase 1 Limited
Appellant
Samson Odwory Wanjala
Respondent
Vincent Otwanistima
Respondent
Peter Odari Olumula
Respondent
Jane Achieng Omondi
Respondent
Elizabeth Chela
Respondent
Pamela Boke Moroa
Respondent
Morine Mutheu Mulinge
Respondent
Mackline Sophie Matifari
Respondent
Alex Changirwa Galegwa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Stay Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment of the lower court should be stayed pending appeal due to non-quantification of sums due.
- 2 Whether the appellant is prejudiced by the lack of specific monetary figures in the judgment.
- 3 Whether a condition should be imposed for stay, such as deposit of decretal sum.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the lower court's judgment did not quantify the sums due to the claimants, creating uncertainty for the appellant regarding the actual amount to be paid. This lack of specificity justified the grant of a stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, as the appellant would otherwise be at risk of enforcement of an unclear monetary award. The court therefore allowed the application for stay, emphasizing that the appeal should be fast-tracked, but refrained from making further pronouncements on the merits of the appeal itself.
Court Disposition
stay of execution granted pending appeal
Orders
- Stay of execution of the judgment of the lower court is granted pending hearing and determination of the appeal.
- The appeal is to be fast-tracked.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT & LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
APPEAL NO. E072 OF 2021
SUNSET BOULEVARD MANAGEMENT
COMPANY PHASE 1 LIMITED….................................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
SAMSON ODWORY WANJALA……....……………..…..1ST RESPONDENT
VINCENT OTWANISTIMA……….………………..….....2ND RESPONDENT
PETER ODARI OLUMULA…………………..……...…..3RD RESPONDENT
JANE ACHIENG OMONDI……………..…....…….....….4TH RESPONDENT
ELIZABETH CHELA……………………...………...….....5TH RESPONDENT
PAMELA BOKE MOROA………………………....….…..6TH RESPONDENT
MORINE MUTHEU MULINGE………………........…….7TH RESPONDENT
MACKLINE SOPHIE MATIFARI…………….....….…...8TH RESPONDENT
ALEX CHANGIRWA GALEGWA...................…......…….9TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Granted the Respondents in the lower Court being the Appellant herein has sought by Motion of 14th July 2021 for a stay of the judgment of Hon. D.O. Mbeja dated 30th June 2021, the judgment as seen by the Court did not specify the sums due on the Claim and at the penultimate paragraph of the decision indicated the Claimants as being successful in the redundancy claim and were entitled to payment in lieu of notice, compensation for unfair and unlawful termination and the judgment was entered in favour of the 9 Claimants as paged in their Claim.
2. The Appellant who was the Respondent in the Court below has raised 8 grounds on appeal and the main gravamen of the Motion by the Appellant/Applicant is the non-quantification of the sums due. It is asserted by Miss Mwikali that the Appellant does not have the benefit of the actual dues ordered by the Court and as such the judgment ought to be stayed pending Appeal.
3. Mr. Awino for the Respondents asserts the figures that were due are ascertained and that the Appellant is aware. He argues that the Respondents who are the successful Claimants in the Court below were not able to understand why the Appellant asserts that it is unclear what sums are due. He urges the dismissal of the Motion by the Appellant with costs but if the Court is inclined to grant it, to do so with condition that the Appellant deposits the entire decretal sum in an interest earning account.
4. The Court having considered the final arguments advanced as well as perusing the record before it, it is clear the Motion by the Appellant is merited in at least one regard. The Learned Magistrate did not quantify the sums due and as such the Appellant may be at a loss as the sums due on account of the Claim. Granted that this is not the appeal proper, I will say no more. The foregoing is clear that the Motion by the Appellant succeeds as I grant stay of the execution of the Judgment of the Court below and order the fast tracking of this Appeal. Stay granted pending hearing and determination of the Appeal herein.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021
NZIOKI wa MAKAU
JUDGE