Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 5.3.2020 (in the main suit following judgment dated 24.1.2020)· [2021] KEELRC 2207 (KLR)

Nyamu & 10 others v National Bank Of Kenya Limited (Cause 1476 of 2015) [2021] KEELRC 2207 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 January 2021
2,418 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

#

The court paused enforcement of the judgment, but only because the bank must first deposit the full amount owed in a joint account within 21 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Onesmus N Makau J of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi determined the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 5.3.2020 seeking stay of execution of a judgment dated 24.1.2020 awarding sums to the claimants, pending an intended appeal. The application was brought under Rule 32(2) of the ELRC Procedure Rules and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant argued the appeal was arguable, that the claimants - unemployed persons of advanced age - would be unable to refund the decretal sum, and that execution would render the appeal nugatory. The claimants opposed, describing the motion as a delaying tactic and proposing instead that half the decretal sum be released to them with the balance held in a joint interest-earning account. The court framed a single issue: whether the Order 42 rule 6(2) threshold was met. On delay, it held the application filed about a month after judgment, before taxation of costs, was not unreasonable since execution before ascertainment of costs requires leave under Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act. On substantial loss, the claimants' own admission that they were unemployed, unemployable and without other income established that the decretal sum would be irrecoverable if execution proceeded. On security, the court rejected the claimants' proposal for partial release as prejudicial and granted a conditional stay: the entire decretal sum plus taxed costs to be deposited within 21 days into an interest-earning joint account in the names of both counsels, failing which the stay lapses automatically. Costs of the application were made costs in the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay

Holding

The application filed about one month after judgment, before taxation of costs, was made without unreasonable delay

Reasoning

The court noted that under Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act execution of a decree of a superior court before ascertainment of costs requires leave of the court. Since costs had not been taxed when the application was filed, there was no imminent danger of execution, and a judgment-debtor need not rush to seek stay before such danger arises. Reliance was placed on Eldoret Grains Limited v National Cereals Produce Board.

p. 2
02

Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss if stay is denied

Holding

Substantial loss was established because the claimants admitted they are unemployed, unemployable due to age, and have no other income from which the decretal sum could be recovered

Reasoning

Applying the precedent that substantial loss is the cornerstone of stay applications and that once an applicant expresses reasonable apprehension that a respondent cannot repay, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent, the court found the claimants' own admissions confirmed the applicant's apprehension that the decretal sum would be irrecoverable if execution proceeded and the appeal later succeeded.

p. 3
03

Whether security for the due performance of the decree had been offered

Holding

Stay was granted on condition that the entire decretal sum plus taxed costs be deposited in a joint interest-earning account within 21 days, failing which the stay lapses

Reasoning

Both sides accepted that security should be given but differed on terms. The court preferred full deposit of the decretal sum plus costs into an interest-earning joint account over the claimants' proposal for partial release, holding that releasing any portion would prejudice the applicant given the claimants' admitted inability to refund the money should the appeal succeed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for stay of execution made after judgment but before ascertainment of costs is not made with unreasonable delay, since execution before taxation of costs requires leave of the court
  • The legal burden of demonstrating that the decree-holder cannot refund the decretal sum lies on the applicant and must be founded on reasonable grounds before the evidential burden shifts
  • Stay of execution should be granted where the applicant shows the decretal sum will not be readily recoverable and offers sufficient security for the decree-holder

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 24.1.2020 granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, on condition that the whole decretal sum plus the taxed costs of the suit are deposited within 21 days in an interest earning account in the joint names of counsel on record for both parties
  2. 2.In default of compliance by the applicant, the stay order shall lapse automatically after expiry of the 21 days' period
  3. 3.Should the default be caused by the claimant, the applicant will have liberty to seek leave to deposit the said security in Court
  4. 4.Costs of the application shall be in the Appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) Procedure RulesRule 32(2); Rule 28(3)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1), (2)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 94

Cases cited (7)

  • Mateine Ole Kilelu & 10 others v Moses K Nailole
    [2009] eKLR
  • Sarah N. Sakwa v Elizabeth Wamwanyi t/a Namukhosi Ltd & another
    [2017] eKLR
  • Magnate Ventures v Simon Mutua Muatha & another
    [2018] eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • Eldoret Grains Limited vs. National Cereals Produce Board
    [2014] eKLR
  • Mukuna v Abuoga
    [1988] KLR 645
  • National Industrial Credit Bank Limited –V- Aquinas Francis Wasike and Another
    [2006] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 32(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC) Procedure Rules and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyamu & 10 others v National Bank Of Kenya Limited (Cause 1476 of 2015) [2021] KEELRC 2207 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 5.3.2020 (in the main suit following judgment dated 24.1.2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/2207/eng@2021-01-22

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