Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCivil Appeal No 10 of 2020· [2020] KEELRC 469 (KLR)

Tamarind Management Limited v Peter Sombo & another [2020] KEELRC 469 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
24 September 2020
1,196 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court paused collection of a Kshs 3.2 million employment award, but only after the employer deposits the full amount in a joint interest-earning account.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa (Linnet Ndolo, J) on the Appellant's Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2020 seeking stay of execution of the judgment of Hon. Lesootia A. Saitabu, PM delivered on 13th February 2020 in CMELR Case No. 449 of 2018 (consolidated with CMELR Case No. 450 of 2018), in which the Respondents, former musicians whose employment was terminated, were awarded Kshs. 1,411,518 and Kshs. 1,346,906 respectively, comprising unpaid leave, house allowance, public holiday pay, severance pay, seven months' salary as compensation, interest and costs. The application was brought under Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Appellant alleging substantial loss because the Respondents, who were unemployed, would be unable to refund the decretal sum of approximately Kshs. 3,272,142 if the appeal succeeded, and offering to deposit security in a joint interest-earning account. The Respondents opposed, arguing the intended appeal was not arguable, the application was an afterthought, and the Appellant had delayed their claims. The court found the Respondents had not contradicted the assertion that they were unemployed and had not addressed their financial means, so the Appellant's right of appeal would be prejudiced without a stay. However, the court declined the Appellant's written submissions seeking a cashless undertaking, holding that the Respondents also needed protection of the fruits of their judgment. Stay was granted conditional on the Appellant depositing the entire decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account within thirty days, failing which the stay would lapse automatically. Costs of the application were made costs in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6 where a money decree is involved

Holding

The Respondents' failure to deny that they are unemployed and not in gainful employment meant the Appellant's apprehension that they could not refund the decretal sum stood uncontradicted, establishing substantial loss

Reasoning

The court accepted that where a money decree is involved, substantial loss lies in the respondent's inability to refund should the appeal succeed. The Respondents did not dispute that they lost their employment and chose not to address the court on their financial means. The court therefore found the Appellant's right of appeal could be prejudiced if stay was not granted.

p. 2
02

Security for the due performance of the decree

Holding

Stay was granted conditional upon the Appellant depositing the entire decretal sum in an interest-earning account in the joint names of the parties' advocates within 30 days, failing which the stay would lapse automatically

Reasoning

Although the application offered a deposit to be determined by the court, the Appellant's written submissions sought a cashless undertaking. The court saw no justification for the departure and held that the Respondents, as judgment creditors, equally needed protection of the fruits of their judgment if the appeal failed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution pending appeal may be granted conditionally on deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account; where substantial loss by reason of the respondent's inability to refund is alleged, security protecting both sides balances their competing interests

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order of stay of execution of the judgment delivered by Hon. Lesootia A. Saitabu, PM on 13th February 2020, subject to the Appellant depositing the entire decretal sum in an interest earning account in the joint names of the parties' Advocates within thirty (30) days from the date of the ruling
  2. 2.Failure to adhere to the condition will lead to an automatic lapse of the stay granted
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be costs in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Winfred Nyawira Maina v Peterson Onyiego Gichana
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court (Mombasa)
CMELR Case No. 449 of 2018 (consolidated with CMELR Case No. 450 of 2018)
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tamarind Management Limited v Peter Sombo & another [2020] KEELRC 469 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal No 10 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/469/eng@2020-09-24

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