[2022] KEELRC 431 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 431 (KLR)

The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to enlarge time for filing an appeal in circumstances where an appeal on the same subject matter was already pending before the High Court. The court emphasized that the proper forum to determine the fate of the pending appeal or to transfer...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELRC 431 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Veew Distributors Limited; Respondent: Fred Musembi Mueni
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Appeal E005 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
MN Nduma
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Jurisdiction of Court, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Out of Time Jurisdiction of Court Abuse of Process

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veew Distributors Limited

Applicant

Fred Musembi Mueni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution and Leave to Appeal Out of Time

  1. 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal out of time when a parallel appeal is pending before the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay of execution and leave to appeal out of time constitutes an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment and Labour Relations Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to enlarge time for filing an appeal in circumstances where an appeal on the same subject matter was already pending before the High Court. The court emphasized that the proper forum to determine the fate of the pending appeal or to transfer it to the appropriate court was the High Court itself, which was already seized of the matter. The court further held that the applicant's conduct in filing multiple applications and appeals on the same issue amounted to an abuse of the court process, as it was intended to delay execution and deny the respondent the benefit of the judgment. Consequently, the application was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.