[2016] KEELRC 1828 (KLR)
The court found that the application to enlarge time for filing a notice of appeal was misconceived because the notice of appeal had already been filed without leave. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had ample opportunity to appeal the judgment delivered on 4th December 2014 but instead chose to seek...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELRC 1828 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Transport Workers Union; Respondent: Puma Wholesalers Limited
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2288 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time and for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Review of Judgment
- 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
Transport Workers Union
Applicant
Puma Wholesalers Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to File Notice of Appeal Out of Time and for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a notice of appeal out of time against the ruling delivered on 25th September 2015.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 4th December 2014.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to enlarge time for filing a notice of appeal was misconceived because the notice of appeal had already been filed without leave. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant had ample opportunity to appeal the judgment delivered on 4th December 2014 but instead chose to seek review, which was dismissed. Seeking a stay of execution nearly eleven months after the judgment, without sufficient justification, was deemed an abuse of process. The court emphasized the need for finality in litigation and refused to allow the applicant a second opportunity to delay execution at the expense of the decree holder. Consequently, the application for stay of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for stay of execution pending filing of appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS
COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 2288 OF 2012
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION...........................CLAIMANT
VERSUS
PUMA WHOLESALERS LIMITED.....................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The Respondent / applicant brought a notice of motion application dated 14th October 2015, seeking for orders inter alia;
2. To be allowed to file a notice of appeal out of time against a ruling of the court delivered on 25th September 2015 dismissing an application for review of the judgment of the court delivered on 4th December 2014 by Hon. Maureen Onyango J.
3. That the court issues an interim order for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 4th December 2014 and consequential orders arising from the ruling of 25th September 2015.
4. The application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant in which he states that in the intended appeal he seeks to get understanding of the ruling of the court dated 25th September 2015. The applicant explains the delay in noting the appeal on the fact that the ruling was delivered without the knowledge of his advocates since it was earlier scheduled for delivery on 18th September 2015.
5. The application is opposed vide a response filed on 29th October 2015 stating that the application lacks merit since an appeal ought to have been lodged against the judgment of Lady Justice Maureen Onyango delivered on 4th December 2014. That the applicant instead opted to file an application for review which was dismissed on 18th September 2015. That the same be dismissed to allow the claimant/respondent to enjoy the fruits of the judgment.
Determination
6. The application to enlarge time within which the applicant is to file a notice of appeal is misconceived, the notice of appeal having been already filed without leave of court on 14th October 2015.
7. Secondly, the judgment of the court was delivered on 4th December 2014, about eleven (11) months from the date this application was filed. The applicant squandered the opportunity to appeal against that judgment and cannot be heard to seek stay of execution of the same eleven (11) months down the line. The application does not disclose any justification for stay of execution.
8. There must be an end to litigation and the court is of the view that, once a party elects to seek review of a judgment, the party cannot many months later, after the application for review has been dismissed be allowed to stay the judgment of the court pending an intended appeal. This is an attempt to have a second bite on the cherry at the expense of the decree holder. Expedient conclusion of cases is an overriding factor in administration of justice.
9. The application for stay of execution pending filing of appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused accordingly.
Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of February 2016.
MATHEWS NDERI NDUMA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE