Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedEmployment Cause No. 626 'B' of 2014, consolidated with Causes No. 1330 and 1331 of 2014· [2020] KEELRC 481 (KLR)

Jimmy Mathew Labi & 2 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 481 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 September 2020
2,563 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court paused execution of a money judgment against National Bank, requiring the disputed funds to be safely deposited while the appeal is decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by Maureen Onyango J of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi on the Respondent/Applicant bank's Notice of Motion dated 6 March 2020, seeking temporary injunction and stay of execution of the judgment and decree of Onyango J delivered on 14 June 2019, in consolidated Causes 626 'B', 1330 and 1331 of 2014. The bank had filed Notices of Appeal on 20 June 2019 and an earlier stay application dated 4 November 2019, which was pending hearing. Meanwhile, the Claimants in Causes 1330 and 1331 proceeded with taxation and initiated execution through Chaka Auctioneers, prompting the instant application. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the principles in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, the court found no inordinate delay, found substantial loss demonstrated because the Claimants had not shown ability to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed, and accepted security by way of a conditional deposit. The court granted stay of execution pending appeal on conditions: the decretal sums plus costs to be deposited in a joint interest-earning account in the joint names of counsel within 30 days, and the appeal to be filed within 60 days, failing which the Claimants may execute. Costs were awarded in the appeal. The judgment was delivered virtually under COVID-19 directions on 18 September 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant satisfied the threshold for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Holding

The application was allowed; the court found the application filed expeditiously, that substantial loss was demonstrated because the Claimants could not refund the decretal sum, and security was offered via conditional deposit of the decretal sum.

Reasoning

The court applied the tripartite test under Order 42 Rule 6(2) and the principles in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal. Notices of Appeal were filed within days of judgment and the earlier stay application of 4 November 2019 had been pending, so there was no inordinate delay. The Claimants' inability to refund the decretal sum meant the appeal risked being nugatory. Security was addressed by ordering deposit of the decretal sums in a joint interest-earning account, with stay lapsing if the appeal was not filed within 60 days.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution pending appeal will be granted where the respondent has not demonstrated ability to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed, and the appeal would otherwise be rendered nugatory.
  • The requirements for grant of stay of execution pending appeal are lack of inordinate delay, demonstration of substantial loss, and willingness to give security.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the decree pending appeal granted on conditions
  2. 2.The Applicant to deposit the entire decretal sums together with costs in a joint interest earning account in a bank to be agreed upon in the joint names of Counsel for the Claimant and Counsel for the Respondent within 30 days
  3. 3.The intended Appeal to be filed within 60 days from the date of the ruling, failing which the Claimants/Respondents be at liberty to proceed with execution
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be in the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActRule 32(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (7)

  • Meteine Ole Kilelu & 10 Others v Moses K. Nailole
    (2009) eKLR
  • Sarah N. Sakwa v Elizabeth Wamwanyi T/A Namukhosi Limited & Another
    (2017) eKLR
  • John Mwangi Ndiritu v Joseph Ndiritu Wamathai
    (2016) eKLR
  • Jaber Mohsen Ali & Another v Priscillah Boit & Another
    (2014) eKLR
  • Richard Muthusi v Patrick Gituma Ngomo & Another
    (2017) eKLR
  • Kwekwe Mwakela v Krystalline Salt Limited
    (2014) eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 32(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (2014), Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jimmy Mathew Labi & 2 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KEELRC 481 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Employment Cause No. 626 'B' of 2014, consolidated with Causes No. 1330 and 1331 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/481/eng@2020-09-18

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