[2019] KEELRC 695 (KLR)
The court held that after declining to grant a stay of execution pending appeal, it became functus officio and could not issue further orders to prevent the claimant from accessing the monies deposited as security. The court emphasized that any further orders regarding the release of the decretal sum could only be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELRC 695 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Veronica Oteri; Respondent: Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 2156 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside/vacate Release Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Termination, Stay of Execution, Functus Officio, Release of Decretal Sum
- 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
Veronica Oteri
Claimant
Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside/vacate Release Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to stop the release of monies deposited as security after declining stay of execution pending appeal.
- 2 Whether the Court is functus officio after declining the application for stay of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that after declining to grant a stay of execution pending appeal, it became functus officio and could not issue further orders to prevent the claimant from accessing the monies deposited as security. The court emphasized that any further orders regarding the release of the decretal sum could only be made by the Court of Appeal. As such, the respondent's application to vacate or set aside the release order was dismissed with costs, affirming the claimant's right to realize the fruits of judgment.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The respondent's application dated 20 September 2019 is dismissed with costs.
- The claimant is entitled to the release of the monies deposited in court as security.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NO. 2156 OF 2014
VERONICA OTERI ...................................................CLAIMANT
v
BARCLAYS BANK OF KENYA LTD.................RESPONDENT
RULING NO. 2
1. In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2018 the Court found and held that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was unfair. The Court awarded the Claimant Kshs 1,188,594 together with costs and interest.
2. The Respondent was dissatisfied and preferred an Appeal on 17 July 2018.
3. On 3 June 2019, the Respondent filed an application before this Court seeking stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal. The Court granted a conditional stay of execution on terms that the Respondent was to deposit the decretal sum into Court pending inter partes hearing of the application.
4. In a Ruling delivered on 15 July 2019, the Court declined to grant an order staying execution pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal because the Respondent had not sufficiently explained the 10 month delay in moving Court for stay of execution.
5. The Claimant then moved the Court on 19 September 2019 seeking for an order to release of the monies deposited into Court. The Court allowed the application because the Respondent was not in Court when the application was urged.
6. The Respondent swiftly moved on 20 September 2019 to have the release order vacated/set aside. It is this application which is the subject of this Ruling.
7. The Court has considered the material and submissions placed before it.
8. The Court agrees with the Claimant that once it declined to allow the Respondent’s application for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal, it became functus officio. The Court having rendered itself on the aforesaid application cannot proceed to stop the Claimant from realising the fruits of Judgment.
9. It is the view of this Court therefore that any order to stop the release of monies deposited in Court as security is only within the province of the Court of Appeal.
10. The Respondent’s application dated 20 September 2019 is dismissed with costs.
Delivered, dated and signed in Nairobi on this 7th day of October 2019.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant Mr Amutallah instructed by Amutallah Robert & Co. Advocates
For Respondent Ms. Kanyiri, Federation of Kenya Employers
Court Assistant Lindsey