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 AllowedNotice of Motion dated 19th June 2023 (application in intended appeal from Constitution Petition No. E076 of 2023)· [2023] KECA 1498 (KLR)

Wajir Wasco Limited alias Wajir Water & Sewerage Company & another v Mohamed & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E396 of 2023) [2023] KECA 1498 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
8 December 2023
2,052 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal paused enforcement of a Kshs.40-70 million salary order against Wajir WASCO, but only if the company deposits Kshs.30 million within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Gachoka, JA writing; Asike-Makhandia and Kantai, JJA concurring) delivered on 8th December 2023 on a Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2023 brought under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules by Wajir WASCO Ltd and the County Government of Wajir. The applicants sought stay of execution and stay of proceedings of an interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Ongaya, J) delivered on 25th May 2023 in Constitution Petition No. E076 of 2023, in which the preliminary objection was dismissed and a conservatory order was issued directing the company to pay 79 employees all salaries withheld from October 2022 and to continue paying future salaries pending the petition. Applying the settled twin principles for rule 5(2)(b) applications - arguability and nugatory-ness - the court held the intended appeal arguable, since the complaint that a mandatory final order was made at an interlocutory stage and the grounds on sections 77 of the County Government Act and 82 of the Water Act could not be deemed frivolous. However, stay of proceedings was refused: such orders are granted sparingly and the applicants showed no prejudice or fair-trial infringement if the petition proceeded. On stay of execution, the court found recovery of sums paid from public funds would be difficult if the appeal succeeded, given the employees' unknown financial status and the disputed amount (between Kshs.40 and 70 Million). The application was allowed only in part: stay of execution issued on condition that the applicants deposit Kshs.30 Million in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days, failing which the stay lapses and the application stands dismissed. The appeal was to be listed on a priority basis; costs of the application abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Arguability of the intended appeal

Holding

The grounds - that a final mandatory order was issued at an interlocutory stage and the applicable statutory law (sections 77 County Government Act and 82 Water Act) - are arguable, satisfying the first limb.

Reasoning

The court examined the memorandum of appeal and the respondents' opposition and held that the question whether a mandatory final order was issued at an interlocutory stage, together with grounds on the applicable law, cannot be deemed frivolous. An arguable ground need not succeed; success is for the appeal bench.

p. 3
02

Stay of proceedings pending appeal

Holding

Refused; the applicants demonstrated no prejudice or infringement of fair trial rights if the petition proceeds to hearing.

Reasoning

The impugned ruling dealt only with continued payment of salaries pending the petition. It is in all parties' interest for the petition to be heard; trial courts must issue directions and rulings in the course of hearings, and not every such ruling attracts a stay of proceedings. No miscarriage of justice or fair-trial infringement was demonstrated.

p. 3
03

Nugatory-ness and stay of execution on terms

Holding

Stay of execution granted conditionally on a Kshs.30 Million deposit in an interest-earning account, because sums paid from public funds would be difficult to recover if the appeal succeeded, given the respondents' financial status was unknown.

Reasoning

The 79 employees earn between Kshs.20,000 and Kshs.60,000 monthly and their financial status is unknown; the disputed amount ranges between Kshs.40 and 70 Million and is unclear. If the appeal succeeded, recovery of sums paid from public funds would be difficult, potentially rendering the appeal nugatory. The court balanced the competing interests by requiring a deposit of Kshs.30 Million within 30 days, failing which the stay lapses and the application stands dismissed.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) must show, first, that the appeal or intended appeal is arguable and not merely frivolous, and secondly, that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution or further proceedings are not stayed.
  • Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action, granted sparingly and only where a miscarriage of justice would result; not every interlocutory direction or ruling warrants a stay of proceedings.
  • An arguable ground is not one that will necessarily succeed at the hearing of the appeal.
  • A court may grant stay of execution on terms, including conditional deposit in an interest-earning account, balancing competing interests of the parties.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the ELRC ruling delivered on 25th May 2023 issued on condition that the applicants deposit Kshs.30 Million in an interest-earning account to be held jointly by the advocates for both parties
  2. 2.The deposit to be made within 30 days, failing which the stay shall lapse and the application shall stand dismissed
  3. 3.The appeal to be listed for hearing on a priority basis
  4. 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 164(3)
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3, 3A & 3B
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 5(2)(b)
  • County Government Actsection 77
  • Water Actsection 82

Cases cited (5)

  • Safaricom Limited v Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited & 2 others
    [2010] eKLR
  • Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter & 5 Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Wildlife Service v James Mutembei
    [2019] eKLR
  • Anne Wanjiku Kibe v Clement Kungu Waibara & IEBC
    [2020] eKLR
  • Nicholas R. O. Ombija v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
    [2009] eKLR
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Constitution Petition No. E076 of 2023 - Safi Abdullahi Adan & 2 Others v Wajir WASCO Ltd alias Wajir Water & Sewerage Company Ltd
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 164(3) of the Constitution, sections 3, 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wajir Wasco Limited alias Wajir Water & Sewerage Company & another v Mohamed & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E396 of 2023) [2023] KECA 1498 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Notice of Motion dated 19th June 2023 (application in intended appeal from Constitution Petition No. E076 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/1498/eng@2023-12-08

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