Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2016] KEELRC 1800 (KLR)

Peter Kimeu Mose & 13 Others v Mang Hotel & Another [2016] KEELRC 1800 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 January 2016
LNLINNET NDOLO
630 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to let an employer pay a Kshs.4.4 million employment award in small monthly installments because it failed to prove it genuinely could not pay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Linnet Ndolo, Judge) dealt with a Notice of Motion dated 14th August 2015 in which the Respondent sought leave to liquidate a decretal sum of Kshs.4,417,422.15 by way of an initial deposit of Kshs.400,000 and twenty-four equal monthly installments of Kshs.167,000.00. The decree arose from an award delivered on 19th June 2015 in favour of fourteen Claimants, comprising payment in lieu of uniforms and house allowance at 15% of last salary, which the parties jointly assessed at the decretal sum. The Respondent, represented by Monica Kinuthia, a Director, deponed that it had closed down at the point of lodging the suit, was not trading or making profits, and that immediate payment would cause undue financial strain and risk of default. The 1st Claimant, Peter Kimeu Mose, countered that the Respondent had assets and other businesses and was able to pay. The Court found that spreading the average award of about Kshs.300,000 per Claimant over 24 months yielded a paltry Kshs.12,500 monthly, which was utterly unreasonable, especially as the Claimants were rendered jobless through no fault of their own. The Respondent did not deny having assets and other businesses, and the Court was not convinced of its inability to pay. The application was dismissed with costs to the Claimants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave should issue for payment of the decretal sum in twenty-four monthly installments

Holding

The application was dismissed; the Respondent failed to prove inability to pay the decretal sum at once.

Reasoning

The award favoured fourteen Claimants, and the proposed 24-month schedule translated to roughly Kshs.12,500 per Claimant per month, which the Court found utterly unreasonable given the Claimants had been rendered jobless through no fault of their own. The Respondent's assertion of closure and lack of profits was not supported: it did not deny owning assets and engaging in other businesses. Granting the prayer would deny the Claimants the fruits of a legitimate award. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for payment of a decretal sum by installments must be supported by credible evidence of genuine inability to pay; mere assertion of financial strain, uncontradicted by denial of assets, will not suffice.
  • Courts will not grant installment-payment terms that effectively deny successful litigants the fruits of a legitimate award.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 14th August 2015 seeking to pay the decretal sum in twenty-four monthly installments is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimants
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court's powers over its own awards and applications for execution by installments

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Kimeu Mose & 13 Others v Mang Hotel & Another [2016] KEELRC 1800 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/1800/eng@2016-01-22

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