Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union (Kpawu) v Greystone Farm (Formerly Equitorial Nut Limited) [2018] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The ELRC dismissed Kenya Nut Company's bid to escape a conditional stay order, ruling that claims of financial hardship mean nothing without evidence and security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the grounds for review under Rule 33 ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016 were met
They were not; the applicant failed to offer security or demonstrate substantial loss beyond bare assertions
The court accepted that Rule 33 sets the parameters for review and that the application was made without unreasonable delay, within a month of the orders. However, on the merits, the applicant merely asserted financial inability without any financial statement or projections, and made no offer of security, which is a mandatory condition for stay. The claim of newly discovering its own financial position was implausible given it had earlier offered to deposit the decretal sum.
Whether there was unreasonable delay in bringing the review application
No unreasonable delay; the application was made with dispatch within a month of the orders
Although the application was finally argued in 2018, the court found from the record that the Respondent made the application for stay and review promptly, within a month of the orders of Ongaya J. Delay therefore did not defeat the application; its failure rested on the merits.
Whether inability to comply with the conditional deposit order constitutes a 'sufficient reason' for review
No; the respondent knew its financial position when it offered to deposit the decretal sum and no exception to the stay rule justifies relieving it of financial embarrassment
The court rejected the submission that the respondent only learnt of its inability after the bank disclosed it. The decretal sum was less than 2 million shillings, and the respondent had previously offered to deposit it. Without financial statements, projections or an offer of security, the applicant failed the Halai v Thornton & Turpin conditions and the review could not stand.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion to order stay of execution is fettered by three conditions: sufficient cause, substantial loss, and furnishing of security
- Financial embarrassment asserted without evidence (no financial statements or projections) cannot excuse compliance with a conditional stay order
Court orders
#- 1.The application for review of the orders of Ongaya J. dated 12th May 2017 is dismissed
- 2.The Respondent/Applicant is directed to deposit the decretal sum (less than 2 million shillings) within 14 days of the Ruling, failing which the stay granted by the court will automatically lapse
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 33 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 (review jurisdiction), Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union (Kpawu) v Greystone Farm (Formerly Equitorial Nut Limited) [2018] KEELRC 1869 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 16th June 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1869/eng@2018-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.