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 E476 of 2021· [2022] KECA 760 (KLR)

Multiscope Consulting Engineers Ltd v Omwena

Court of Appeal
24 June 2022
1,375 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal paused an employment award's enforcement, but only after the employer deposited Kshs. 500,000 within 45 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (D.K. Musinga, P, A.K. Murgor and S. Ole Kantai, JJA) on a Notice of Motion dated 23rd December 2021 brought under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010, seeking stay of execution of the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (H. Wasilwa, J.) dated 26th January 2021 in ELRC Cause No. 498 of 2016, which ordered the applicant to refund Kshs. 161,734 for medical cover, pay 10 months' salary as compensation for unfair redundancy (Kshs. 1.9 million), pay Kshs. 655,000 for unpaid salary, and Kshs. 262,500 in out-of-pocket allowances. The trial court had earlier granted a conditional stay requiring payment of 50% of the decretal amount and deposit of the balance, which the applicant could not meet, citing Covid-19-related financial hardship; its review application was dismissed. Applying the settled rule 5(2)(b) threshold, the Court found the ground that redundancy was neither pleaded nor proved, yet compensation was awarded without a hearing, arguable, and held the appeal would be rendered nugatory because the applicant gave no assurance of ability to refund the decretal sums. Noting both parties were in a financial quagmire, the Court allowed the motion but granted a conditional stay: the applicant to deposit Kshs. 500,000 in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the parties' advocates within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses. Costs were awarded in the appeal. The decision binds subordinate courts and tribunals on the rule 5(2)(b) threshold as applied.

Key legal issues

#
01

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The ground that the trial court awarded compensation for redundancy without it being pleaded and without a hearing is arguable.

Reasoning

The applicant complained that the trial judge found the respondent was declared redundant and awarded 10 months' compensation although redundancy was neither pleaded nor demonstrated, denying the applicant an opportunity to be heard on that issue. The Court found this raised a fit subject for appellate consideration and was satisfied it was arguable.

02

Nugatory value of the appeal

Holding

The second limb was met because the applicant gave no assurance of ability to refund the decretal sums if paid.

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that if the respondent was paid and the appeal later succeeded, recovery would be difficult since the applicant had not provided assurances of its ability to refund or demonstrated means to do so. On that basis the nugatory limb was satisfied.

p. 3
03

Form of the stay order

Holding

Given the applicant's demonstrated financial hardship, a conditional stay with a deposit of Kshs. 500,000 was the prudent course.

Reasoning

Although the threshold requirements were met, the applicant repeatedly stated it could not pay the decretal sums owing to its precarious financial position arising from the Covid-19 pandemic. Both parties thus appeared to be in a financial quagmire, prompting the Court to craft a conditional stay balancing the interests of both sides.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application under rule 5(2)(b) requires the applicant to demonstrate an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay is denied.
  • Where the applicant demonstrates inability to pay the decretal sum, the Court may grant a conditional stay requiring deposit of a lesser sum into a joint interest-bearing account.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of stay of execution of the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court dated 26th January 2021 is granted on condition that the applicant deposits Kshs. 500,000 in a joint interest earning account in the names of the parties' advocates within 45 days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.The stay order will lapse in the event of failure by the applicant to comply with the deposit condition
  3. 3.Costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rule 5(2)(b)

Cases cited (1)

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

    Threshold requirements for stay under rule 5(2)(b): arguable appeal and nugatory appeal.

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nairobi
ELRC Cause No. 498 of 2016
Jurisdiction invoked
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, "Multiscope Consulting Engineers Ltd v Omwena", Case Analysis (2022). Civil Application E476 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2022/760/eng@2022-06-24

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