Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissed· [2022] KEELRC 1170 (KLR)

Thiga v Unga Limited (Cause 2311 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1170 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 May 2022
2,253 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Maureen Onyango J) on a notice of motion dated 8th October 2021 by the Respondent/Judgment Debtor seeking stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 10th September 2021 pending an intended appeal. The Applicant, through counsel Betsy Jerotich, explained that a technical hitch during the virtual delivery of judgment prevented counsel from seeking stay at the time, that the court declined to grant stay ex parte and advised filing a formal application, and that the Applicant would suffer irreparable loss and the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory. The Claimant/Decree Holder, Eric Gichuru Thiga, opposed the application, contending that the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) were not met: no substantial loss was demonstrated, there was inordinate delay, no security was offered, and no notice of appeal had been filed within the prescribed fourteen days. The court framed the application against Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It found that no notice of appeal had been filed and no leave for extension of time sought; that the 28-day delay in filing the application, despite the court's advice at judgment delivery, amounted to inordinate delay; and that no security for the due performance of the decree had been offered. The court therefore held the application incompetent and unmerited, dismissed it with costs to the Claimant/Decree Holder.

Key legal issues

#
01

Existence of an appeal or intended appeal as a foundation for stay

Holding

There being no notice of appeal and no prayer for leave to file one out of time, there is no appeal to warrant stay of execution pending appeal.

Reasoning

The court observed that by the time the application was filed, the 14-day period for filing a notice of appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules had lapsed and there was no application for extension of time. Without a notice of appeal, there is no appeal against the judgment and decree, and therefore no basis for stay of execution pending appeal.

p. 5
02

Unreasonable delay in bringing the application

Holding

The 28-day delay in filing the application, despite being advised at judgment delivery to file a formal application, constituted inordinate delay.

Reasoning

Counsel for the Applicant was advised by the court at the time of delivery of judgment to file a formal application for stay. She waited 28 days and only filed after the decree holder demanded payment by letter dated 7th October 2021. The court held this demonstrated inordinate delay, one of the conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) that the applicant must satisfy.

p. 5
03

Failure to offer security for the due performance of the decree

Holding

The Applicant offered no security for the due performance of the decree, a mandatory condition under Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b).

Reasoning

The court noted that no offer of security appeared in the application, the supporting affidavit, or the Applicant's submissions. Since Order 42 Rule 6(2) requires that such security as the court orders for the due performance of the decree be given by the applicant, the failure to offer any security was a further independent ground for dismissing the application.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) fails where no notice of appeal has been filed, where the application is brought after inordinate delay, and where no security for the due performance of the decree is offered.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 8th October 2021 seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 10th September 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Applicant to pay costs of the application to the Claimant/Decree Holder

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 48
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1

Cases cited (8)

  • Jairus Momanyi Buranda & another v Ojwang Emmanuel Ochieng
    [2021] eKLR
  • Meteine Ole Kilelu & 19 others v Moses K. Nailole
    [2009] eKLR
  • National Industrial Credit Bank Limited v Aquinas Francis Wasike and Another
    [2006] eKLR
  • Chris Munga N. Bichage v Richard Nyagaka Tongi & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Prilscot Company Limited v Monica Heho
    [2015] eKLR
  • Halai & Anor v Thornton Turpin (1963) Ltd
    (1990) KLR 365
  • James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    [2012] eKLR
  • Joseph Gachie T/A Joska Metal Works v Simon Ndeti Muema
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Thiga v Unga Limited (Cause 2311 of 2016) [2022] KEELRC 1170 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/1170/eng@2022-05-06

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