Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment excerpt· [2015] KEELRC 563 (KLR)

Rashid Jeneby v Prime Bank Limited [2015] KEELRC 563 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
21 August 2015
1,111 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court granted only a conditional stay of a Kshs 3 million award, requiring half the money be paid now and half secured by bank guarantee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi on the Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 12th June 2015 seeking stay of execution of an award delivered on 15th May 2015 by Linnet Ndolo J in favour of the Claimant, Rashid Jeneby. The award totalled Kshs 3,033,333, comprising six months' salary for unfair termination, three months' salary in lieu of notice, eleven months' half pay, and 20 days' leave pay. The Respondent filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay, asserting it would suffer substantial loss given doubts about the Claimant's ability to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed, and offering security including a bank guarantee. The Claimant, noting the Respondent never contested quantum at trial, conceded only a conditional stay: 50% of the decretal sum paid to him and 50% deposited in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the parties' advocates. The Court framed a single issue - whether the Respondent had made out a case for stay pending appeal. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the case-law requirement of an arguable appeal that would be rendered nugatory, the Court found the application timely, security offered, and the draft memorandum of appeal raising substantive issues. However, finding no evidence that the Claimant was a man of straw, the Court declined a full stay and instead balanced the Respondent's right of appeal against the Claimant's right to the fruits of judgment, granting a conditional stay. Costs of the application were made costs in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) were satisfied

Holding

Yes, subject to conditions: the application was filed without delay, security was offered, the appeal was arguable, but only a conditional stay was warranted

Reasoning

The Court applied the three statutory conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2) - substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and adequate security - plus the case-law condition that the appeal be arguable and not nugatory. It found the application timely, security offered, and the draft memorandum raising substantive issues. However, absent proof that the Claimant was a man of straw, substantial loss was not established sufficiently to justify a full stay, so the Court crafted a conditional stay balancing both parties' rights.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An arguable appeal need not be one that will succeed; it is enough that it raises a bona fide arguable point
  • In determining a stay of execution pending appeal, the Court must balance the applicant's right of appeal against the decree holder's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment
  • It is not enough for a judgment debtor to merely assert that the decree holder will be unable to repay the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent shall release to the Claimant the equivalent of 50% of the decretal sum within the next 14 days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.The balance, being the equivalent of 50% of the decretal sum, shall be secured by a bank guarantee to be perfected within the next 30 days from the date of the ruling
  3. 3.Failure to observe any of the conditions of stay shall lead to an automatic lapse of the stay granted
  4. 4.The costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Banking Insurance & Finance Union (Kenya) v Murata Sacco Society Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Syner-Med Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Glaxo Group Limited
    [2010] eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • David Mbugua v Keroche Breweries Ltd
    [2015] eKLR
  • Michael Kiboi Gatumia v Mastermind Tobacco (K) Limited
    [2013] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Civil Procedure Rules Order 42 Rule 6(2) on applications for stay of execution pending appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rashid Jeneby v Prime Bank Limited [2015] KEELRC 563 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the judgment excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/563/eng@2015-08-21

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