[2018] KEELRC 1370 (KLR)
The court found that while the applicant had moved to court without undue delay and the amount in question was substantial, the applicant had not demonstrated that the claimant was incapable of refunding the amount if the appeal succeeded. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion under Order 42 rule 6(2) of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELRC 1370 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Timothy Graeme Steel; Respondent: TNT Express Worldwide (Kenya) Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 562B of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution allowed conditionally.
- Judges
- HS Wasilwa
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Security for Due Performance, Substantial Loss, Appeals in Labour Disputes
- 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
Timothy Graeme Steel
Claimant
TNT Express Worldwide (Kenya) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent/applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether substantial loss will result to the applicant unless the stay is granted.
- 3 Whether the application for stay was made without unreasonable delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicant had moved to court without undue delay and the amount in question was substantial, the applicant had not demonstrated that the claimant was incapable of refunding the amount if the appeal succeeded. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules to grant a conditional stay of execution, requiring the applicant to deposit USD 50,000 in joint names of counsels within 30 days, failing which execution would issue. This approach balanced the interests of both parties and preserved the subject matter pending determination of the appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution allowed conditionally.
Orders
- Stay of execution of the court's orders of 18/5/2018 is granted pending appeal.
- Applicant to deposit USD 50,000 in joint names of counsels on record within 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 562’B’ OF 2017
(Before Hon. Justice Hellen S. Wasilwa on 23rd July, 2018)
TIMOTHY GRAEME STEEL..................................................CLAIMANT
-VERSUS-
TNT EXPRESS WORLDWIDE (KENYA) LIMITED......RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Application before Court is dated 4/6/2018 seeking stay of execution of this Court’s orders made on 18/5/2018 directing the Respondent to deposit 100,000 US Dollars in Court.
2. The Respondent/Applicant aver that they have filed an appeal, which would be rendered nugatory unless orders sought are granted. The Applicants aver that the alleged acquisition of the Application is not true as Applicants are still in Kenya and in existence. They indicated that they have a lease of 6 years, which will end in 2023.
3. The Claimants opposed this Application through their Replying Affidavit sworn on 12/6/2018. They submitted that the Applicants have not satisfied the grounds for grant of stay as provided under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. They aver that the Applicants have not demonstrated the substantial loss they stand to suffer.
4. The Respondent averred that the 10 million ordered by Court to be deposited is substantial and the Applicant will suffer loss if the order is not granted.
5. I have considered the averments of both parties.
6. Under Order 42 rule 6(2):
“(2) No order for stay of execution shall be made under subrule (1) unless:
a. the court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and
b. such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant”.
7. Thus the Court will be guided by the 3 limbs above in determining whether or not to grant stay orders. The Applicants came to Court without undue delay. They have also indicated that 10 million is a substantial amount which they stand to lose if the appeal is allowed. Whereas the 10 million is substantial, the Applicants have not demonstrated that the Claimant is a man of straw and they cannot recover this amount if the appeal is allowed.
8. However, under Order 42 rule 6, this Court can exercise its discretion and grant the orders sought. I will therefore exercise my discretion and allow the application staying this Court’s orders of 4/6/2018 in order to allow the Court of Appeal determine the merits or otherwise of the said orders.
9. I will however exercise my discretion on condition that 50,000 USD be deposited in joint names of Counsels on record as earlier directed within 30 days. In default execution to issue.
Dated and delivered in open Court this 23rd day of July, 2018.
HON. LADY JUSTICE HELLEN WASILWA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms. Rahidi holding brief for Mr. Kotonya for Applicants – Present
Respondent – Absent