Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 1727 of 2011· [2014] KEELRC 267 (KLR)

Patrick Onguso Nasibi v National Water Conservation & another [2014] KEELRC 267 (KLR)

Industrial Court of Kenya
16 September 2014
1,570 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

#

A Kenyan employer lost its bid to postpone paying a judgment because it had already taken its appeal question to the Court of Appeal instead.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent, National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation, moved the Industrial Court by Notice of Motion dated 15th May 2014 seeking stay of execution of a decree of Kshs.2,906,278.85 plus costs of Kshs.187,070 assessed on 28th March 2014, following judgment entered against it on 16th January 2013. The Respondent had filed Nairobi Civil Application No. 57 of 2013 in the Court of Appeal seeking leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time, which remained pending, and the Claimant had instructed auctioneers to execute. The Claimant opposed, arguing that no Notice of Appeal was filed within 14 days, that there was no existing appeal to stay pending, and that he had substantial means to refund the decretal sum if the intended appeal succeeded. The court identified as the first issue its own jurisdiction in light of the pending Court of Appeal application. It held that both the Industrial Court and the Court of Appeal have concurrent jurisdiction to grant stay, but that once the Court of Appeal is seized of a matter the Industrial Court becomes functus officio; granting stay here would amount to speculative orders premised on the success of the extension application. The court further noted that no appeal had actually been filed, that the Respondent had not applied for certified proceedings or a certificate of delay, and that the intended appeal raised matters of both law and fact although appeals from the Industrial Court lie on issues of law only. The court also recorded that a 30-day stay had been granted at judgment. The application was dismissed with costs on 16th September 2014.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to grant stay of execution where the applicant has already applied to the Court of Appeal for extension of time

Holding

Both the Industrial Court and the Court of Appeal have concurrent jurisdiction to grant stay, but once the Court of Appeal is seized of the matter, the Industrial Court becomes functus officio and the application should be pursued in the Court of Appeal.

Reasoning

The court found that Rule 41 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act give both courts power to grant stay and extension of time. However, the Respondent had chosen to go to the Court of Appeal, which has concurrent jurisdiction. Once seized, the Court of Appeal alone can confirm whether the extension application will succeed; granting stay in this court would amount to speculative orders, which the court cannot do.

p. 3
02

Whether stay of execution pending appeal can be granted where no appeal has been filed

Holding

Stay pending appeal presupposes an arguable appeal that would be rendered nugatory; here there is no appeal, only a pending application for leave to file notice of appeal out of time.

Reasoning

The court noted that no appeal has been filed; the applicant has only sought leave to file notice of appeal out of time in the Court of Appeal. Stay of execution is granted on the grounds of an arguable appeal which would be rendered nugatory. The court also observed the Respondent had not sought certified proceedings or a certificate of delay, and the intended appeal raised matters of fact as well as law despite the Industrial Court Act restricting appeals to issues of law only.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal does not operate as a stay of execution.
  • Once the Court of Appeal is seized of a matter, this court ceases to have jurisdiction and becomes functus officio until the matter is remitted back.
  • Under Rule 41 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010, the Court of Appeal may entertain stay or extension applications notwithstanding that no application was first made to the superior court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 15th May 2014 seeking stay of execution of the decree is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Industrial Court ActSection 17
  • Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010Rules 16(2), 27(4), 31(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1, Order 42 Rule 6(1), (2) and (6)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010Rule 41
  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 7

Cases cited (6)

  • Kenya Kazi Security Services Limited vs Kenya National Private Security Workers Union
    Civil Appeal No. NAI.108 of 2013 (UR 71/2013)
  • Transport Workers Union Kenya vs African Safari Diani Adventure
    HCCC No. 2225 of 1992 – Mombasa Industrial Cause No. 21 of 2013
  • Josephine Seraphine Wadegu vs Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited
    Kisumu Industrial Cause No. 3'A'/2013
  • Ramadhan Mohamed Ali vs Hasim Salim Ghaim
    Mombasa HCCA No. 32 of 2013
  • Redlands Enterprises Limited v Premier Savings & Finance Limited
    (2002) 2 KLR
  • Joseph Makarios v Benardicato Esalambo & another
    {2014} eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 17 of the Industrial Court Act, 2011; Rule 16(2), 27(4) and 31(2) of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Patrick Onguso Nasibi v National Water Conservation & another [2014] KEELRC 267 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No. 1727 of 2011. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/267/eng@2014-09-16

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