[2018] KEELRC 1940 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1940 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss if stay was not granted, as execution of the impugned orders would not irreversibly deprive the applicant of the right to strike in the future should the appeal succeed. The orders merely required the parties to engage in conciliation and did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1940 (KLR)
Parties
Claimant: University of Nairobi; Respondent: Kenya Universities Staff Union
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Cause 409 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Strike Procedure, Unprotected Strike, Stay of Execution, Conciliation Process, Collective Bargaining Agreement, Substantial Loss
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Strike Procedure Unprotected Strike Stay of Execution Conciliation Process Collective Bargaining Agreement Substantial Loss

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University of Nairobi

Claimant

Kenya Universities Staff Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for granting stay pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted.
  3. 3 Whether the application for stay was made without undue delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss if stay was not granted, as execution of the impugned orders would not irreversibly deprive the applicant of the right to strike in the future should the appeal succeed. The orders merely required the parties to engage in conciliation and did not preclude future industrial action if warranted. The application for stay was made without undue delay, but the applicant did not address the issue of security for costs. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of the applicant against the harm to students and stakeholders caused by the ongoing unprotected strike. Granting stay would undermine statutory and...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

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