Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially Allowed· [2020] KEELRC 187 (KLR)

Patrick Omutia Otulia & another v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 187 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 November 2020
1,658 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court halted execution of a KSh 6.4 million judgment, but only if the losing employer deposits the money in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent in the main suit (the judgment-debtor) moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by an application dated 16/9/2020 seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 22/5/2018, by which the 1st and 2nd Claimants were awarded Kshs. 1,579,689.44 and Kshs. 4,823,598.50 respectively, and recall of warrants of attachment issued to Viewline Auctioneers on 14/9/2020 to satisfy the unpaid portion of KShs. 2,989,744.94. The Applicant had earlier sought review, dismissed by ruling of 30/1/2020, and filed a Notice of Appeal on 5/2/2020. It argued substantial loss because the proclaimed goods were tools of trade essential to its operations as a public utility provider, the 2nd Claimant was a person of unknown means unlikely to refund the decretal sum, and it was willing to offer a bank guarantee or insurance bond despite COVID-19 financial constraints. The Claimants opposed, citing inordinate unexplained delay of over two years, failure to file a Memorandum of Appeal, and the absence of furnished security, relying inter alia on Samvir Trustee Limited and Mohsen Ali. Applying Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court acknowledged that the delay was unexplained but, because an appeal had been filed and security was offered, exercised its discretion to allow the application conditionally: stay of execution on the Applicant depositing the decretal sum in an interest-earning account in the joint names of counsel on record within 30 days, failing which execution to proceed. Costs were awarded in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 rule 6(2)

Holding

Stay granted despite inordinate and unexplained delay, because the Applicant had filed an appeal and offered security

Reasoning

The court recited the three Order 42 rule 6(2) conditions: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. It noted the judgment was delivered in May 2018, over two years earlier, and that the delay in seeking stay was not explained. Security was offered only as a bank guarantee, not actually furnished. Nevertheless, weighing the filing of the appeal and the offer of security, the court exercised its discretion to grant stay conditional upon deposit of the decretal sum, with execution to follow in default.

p. 3
02

Unreasonable delay

Holding

The delay of over two years in seeking stay was not explained, a factor against the Applicant

Reasoning

The Applicant sought stay of a judgment delivered on 22/5/2018, more than two years before the application of 16/9/2020. The Applicant argued that the relevant ruling was the dismissal of its review application on 30/1/2020, so there was no inordinate delay. The court found the delay unexplained but did not treat it as fatal, evidently because the appeal had been filed and security was offered. The conditional structure of the stay protected the Claimants' interests.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The court may grant stay of execution on condition that the decretal sum is deposited in an interest-earning account in joint names of counsel, with execution to proceed in default

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 22/5/2018 granted on condition that the Applicant deposits the decretal sum in an interest-earning account held in the joint names of counsel on record within 30 days
  2. 2.In default of the deposit, execution to proceed
  3. 3.Costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActOrder 42 rule 6(2)

Cases cited (3)

  • Focin Motorcycle Co. Limited vs. Ann Wambui Wangui & Another
    [2018] eKLR
  • Mohsen Ali & Another vs. Priscillah Boit & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Samvir Trustee Limited vs. Guardian Bank Limited
    Milimani HCCC 795 of 1997
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Act (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Patrick Omutia Otulia & another v Nairobi City Water & Sewerage Company Limited [2020] KEELRC 187 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/187/eng@2020-11-11

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