Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No. 229 of 2014· [2016] KEELRC 607 (KLR)

Jacob Joseph Onyango v John Ndungu Mureithi [2016] KEELRC 607 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
3 October 2016
RSRadido Stephen
316 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court clarified that decretal funds deposited in Court can be paid to a claimant's advocate, not only the claimant personally.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short clarification ruling (Ruling No. 4) in Cause No. 229 of 2014 before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru, delivered by Radido Stephen, Judge, on 3 October 2016. By a ruling of 23 September 2016 the Court had ordered that Kshs 1,403,261/-, deposited into Court by the Respondent as a condition for stay of execution, be released to the Claimant. The Claimant's advocate, Mrs Ndeda of Ndeda & Associates, sought clarification because the Court's cash office would only issue a cheque in the Claimant's own name, not in the advocates' name, citing audit concerns. The Respondent's advocate, Ms Mukira of Elizabeth Wangari & Co. Advocates, opposed clarification and contended that a formal application for review should be filed; she also noted that a Notice of Appeal and an application for stay pending appeal had been filed in the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the substance of its earlier ruling - that the half decretal sum be released to the Claimant within 10 days unless the Court of Appeal decided otherwise - would not be affected by the payee of the cheque, and that release had only been impeded by prudent audit and account requirements. It therefore ordered that the amount deposited into Court be released to the Claimant's advocate. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court could clarify its earlier order to direct release of deposited funds to the Claimant's advocates

Holding

The Court clarified the order so that the deposited sum is released to the Claimant's advocate

Reasoning

The Court had ordered release of Kshs 1,403,261/- deposited as a condition for stay. The Court's cash office would only issue a cheque in the Claimant's name, impeding release. The Court held that the payee of the cheque does not affect the substance of the ruling, which required release within 10 days unless the Court of Appeal decided otherwise, and so a clarification (rather than review) was appropriate.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A clarification of an order that does not affect its substance may be granted; the mode of release of funds impeded only by audit requirements does not alter the ruling's substance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The amount deposited into Court (Kshs 1,403,261/-) be released to the Claimant's advocate rather than to the Claimant personally
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over its own Cause No. 229 of 2014, including clarification of its orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jacob Joseph Onyango v John Ndungu Mureithi [2016] KEELRC 607 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No. 229 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/607/eng@2016-10-03

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