Susan Mumbua & 6 others v Navitas Limited & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 608 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Industrial Court refused to pause a case where the intended appeal raised factual, not legal, issues.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal discloses arguable matters of law under Section 17(2) of the Industrial Court Act
The application for stay was dismissed because the draft memorandum of appeal raised only factual grounds, with two grounds addressing matters the court never determined
Section 17(2) of the Industrial Court Act confines appeals from the Industrial Court to matters of law. On a perusal of the six grounds in the draft memorandum, grounds 5 and 6 addressed issues on which the court's ruling of 23rd March 2015 made no determination, while the remaining four grounds were factual. An appeal on facts cannot lie to the Court of Appeal, so the applicants failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal on a matter of law and stay of proceedings could not be granted.
Legal principles established
#- Appeals from the Industrial Court lie only on matters of law, and an intended appeal whose grounds are factual does not satisfy the threshold for stay of proceedings pending appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 30th March 2015 for stay of proceedings pending appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 17 of the Industrial Court Act 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Susan Mumbua & 6 others v Navitas Limited & 2 others [2015] KEELRC 608 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Not stated in the extract (Notice of Motion dated 30th March 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2015/608/eng@2015-06-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.