Kenya Chemical and Allied Workers Union v East African Portland Cement Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1177 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court paused a Kshs.1 billion judgment against an employer because the money could not be refunded if the appeal succeeded.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Stay of execution pending appeal
Stay was granted because the decretal sum of over Kshs.1 billion payable to over 600 contract staff could not realistically be recovered if the appeal succeeded, rendering the appeal nugatory.
The court considered the Applicant's averment that implementation of the judgment before the appeal is determined would make the subject matter spent, since the Claimant would be unable to refund the decretal sum of over Kshs.1 billion to over 600 contract staff. Weighing that risk against the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the Claimant, and on the security requirement of Order 42 Rule 6(b), the court found it just to grant the stay as prayed.
Legal principles established
#- A court will not deny a stay whose effect would be to render the intended appeal nugatory, particularly where a colossal sum of money is involved.
Court orders
#- 1.Application for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 6th July 2015 allowed as prayed
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159, 162(2) and 164(3) of the Constitution; Sections 12(3)(i) & (viii), 7(1) & (2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act 2011; Rule 16 of the Industrial Court (Procedure) Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Chemical and Allied Workers Union v East African Portland Cement Company Limited [2016] KEELRC 1177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 2119 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1177/eng@2016-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.