Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedCivil Application E356 of 2021· [2022] KECA 556 (KLR)

Principal Secretary- Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government & another v Macharia & another

Court of Appeal
27 May 2022
1,251 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal paused payment of an employment award against the Interior Ministry until its appeal is decided, because the employees couldn't show they could refund the money.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Murgor, Mbogholi-Msagha and Laibuta, JJA) on a notice of motion dated 21st September 2021 by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior and the Public Service Commission, seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Mbaru, J.) in ELRC Cause No. 1718 of 2017, which found the respondents' employment unfairly terminated and awarded each of them compensation of Kshs. 480,000, notice pay of Kshs. 80,000, unpaid salary, pension dues, interest and costs. The application was brought under Articles 159 and 164 of the Constitution, sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010. The respondents opposed, contending the notice of appeal had lapsed, the judgment had been complied with, the application was premature as no decree had been drawn or bill of costs taxed, and the appeal was not arguable. Applying the twin rule 5(2)(b) threshold from Republic vs Kenya Anticorruption Commission, the court found the intended appeal arguable on the complaint that the judge failed to apply the civil-servant disciplinary framework in the Public Service Commission Act, the 2005 Regulations and the Human Resources Manual, and found the nugatory limb satisfied because the respondents gave no assurance of refunding the decretal sums. The motion was allowed with costs in the appeal. The decision binds subordinate courts and tribunals on the rule 5(2)(b) threshold as applied.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal is arguable

Holding

Arguable - the complaint that the learned judge failed to take into account the statutory and regulatory procedure for disciplining civil servants raises arguable matters.

Reasoning

The applicants argued the ELRC judge disregarded the Public Service Commission Act, the Public Service Commission Regulations 2005, the Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual, and section 41 of the Employment Act. The court held that whether the judge failed to apply these applicable provisions in disciplining and removing the respondents was arguable, without deciding the merits.

p. 3
02

Whether the appeal's success would be rendered nugatory if stay is denied

Holding

The nugatory limb was satisfied because the respondents gave no assurance they could refund the decretal sums if the appeal succeeded.

Reasoning

The applicants asserted the respondents had not demonstrated capacity to refund the decretal amounts. On reviewing the replying affidavit, the court found no assurance of refundability and considered it more prudent that the dispute be settled on appeal with finality before payment of the decretal sums.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy the twin requirements that the appeal is arguable and that its success would not be rendered nugatory if stay is refused.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the ELRC dated 28th June 2021 in ELRC Cause No. 1718 of 2017 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
  2. 2.Costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 164
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3A
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsection 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010Rule 5(2)(b)
  • Public Service Commission Act
  • Public Service Commission Regulations, 2005
  • Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual for the Public Service
  • Employment Actsection 41

Cases cited (1)

  • Republic vs Kenya Anticorruption Commission and 2 others
    [2009] eKLR

    Statement of the twin threshold requirements under rule 5(2)(b): arguability and nugatory-ness.

On appeal from
Employment & Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
ELRC Cause No. 1718 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159 and 164 of the Constitution, sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Principal Secretary- Ministry of Interior & Co-ordination of National Government & another v Macharia & another", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E356 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/556/eng@2022-05-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.