Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. 20 of 2018 (Ruling No. 2)· [2021] KEELRC 2132 (KLR)

Job Madede v Acacia Ventures Limited [2021] KEELRC 2132 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
17 February 2021
RSRadido Stephen
810 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

#

An employer that ignores court directions and never appeals a judgment cannot stop a Kenyan court from releasing the money owed to a sacked employee.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling arises from execution proceedings following the Court's judgment of 20 December 2018, in which Acacia Ventures Limited was found to have unfairly terminated Job Madede's employment and compensation was awarded. The Respondent did not pay, prompting execution. An objector's proceedings had earlier led to the lifting of warrants. The Respondent then filed a Motion on 8 October 2020 seeking to injunct fresh proclamation and attachment; the Court allowed it and directed service, exchange of affidavits and submissions before a mention on 11 November 2020. Neither party attended on that date and the Court dismissed the application, with nothing on record showing service or compliance. On 3 December 2020 the Respondent filed a further Motion seeking an interim and inter-partes stay of the intended proclamation and public auction, and setting aside, varying or reviewing the orders of 11 November 2020 so as to reinstate the orders of 8 October 2020. The Court granted a conditional interim stay, which the Respondent complied with by depositing the decretal sum in Court on 8 December 2020. In the ruling of 17 February 2021, Radido J found the Motion had no merit for three reasons: the Respondent, though pleading illness, had not served the application or filed affidavits and submissions as directed and did not rebut the Claimant's assertion of non-service; the Respondent had not appealed the 2018 judgment and so had no legal impediment to justify failure to satisfy the decree; and the Respondent had not shown the execution was defective or irregular. The Court dismissed the Motion with further costs to the Claimant and directed that, absent appellate stay orders within 10 days, the deposited decretal sum be released to the Claimant's advocate.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to set aside/review the dismissal of the application dated 8 October 2020

Holding

The Court refused to set aside the dismissal because the Respondent, beyond pleading illness, had not complied with the directions to serve the application and file affidavits and submissions

Reasoning

The Court noted that the Respondent was directed to serve the application within 14 days, but the Claimant's advocate deposed that the application was never served and the Respondent did not rebut that assertion. Non-attendance was therefore not the only failing; there was wholesale non-compliance with the Court's directions, making the application for review meritless.

p. 2
02

Whether execution should be stayed

Holding

No stay was warranted as the Respondent had not appealed the judgment and showed no defect or irregularity in the intended execution

Reasoning

The Respondent did not appeal against the judgment of 20 December 2018, so no pending appeal existed to justify withholding satisfaction of the decree. The Court found the execution not shown to be defective or irregular, and held that allowing the application would waste judicial time and defeat the Claimant's entitlement to the fruits of the judgment.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A judgment-debtor who has not appealed and faces no legal impediment cannot resist a decree-holder's lawful execution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated 3 December 2020 is dismissed with further costs to the Claimant
  2. 2.Unless the Respondent secures stay orders from the Appellate Court within 10 days, the decretal sum deposited in Court is to be released to the Claimant's advocate on record
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over the Cause; the Court did not invoke a specific constitutional or statutory provision in the ruling

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Job Madede v Acacia Ventures Limited [2021] KEELRC 2132 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Cause No. 20 of 2018 (Ruling No. 2). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2132/eng@2021-02-17

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