Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedRuling on Notice of Motion dated 16th November, 2022· [2023] KEELRC 1652 (KLR)

Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 6 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 1652 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
6 July 2023
2,614 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 employment court paused enforcement of a union dues judgment, but only because the employer put up a Kshs 2 million bank guarantee within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Hellen Wasilwa, J) determined the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 16th November 2022 seeking stay of execution of the court's judgment of 6th October 2022 pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The motion was anchored on section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicant, aggrieved by the judgment ordering remittance of union dues, argued the appeal was arguable, that it risked substantial loss given the colossal sums involved, that the judgment was unclear on the number of unionisable employees, and offered a bank guarantee as security. The Respondent union opposed, contending no decree had been extracted or execution commenced, rendering the application premature; that execution is a lawful process; that the judgment was clear; and that failure to pay union dues and taxed costs of Kshs 310,991.60 amounted to defiance of court orders. Both parties filed written submissions. The court rejected the Applicant's assertion that the judgment failed to state the number of unionisable employees, noting the judgment had stated 209 for the forwarded check-off forms. Nevertheless, finding that an appeal had already been filed and the Applicant willing to furnish security, the court allowed stay of execution on condition that the Applicant provide a bank guarantee of Kshs 2 Million within 30 days, in default of which execution to proceed. The ruling was delivered virtually on 6th July 2023, with no express costs order.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6 were met

Holding

The court found the appeal already filed and security offered, so stay was warranted on terms

Reasoning

The court noted the applicant was willing to provide security and that an appeal was already filed against the orders. To avoid prejudicing the appeal and rendering it nugatory, the court granted stay conditional on a bank guarantee of Kshs 2 Million within 30 days, with execution to proceed in default.

p. 5
02

Whether the judgment failed to state the number of unionisable employees for purposes of remitting union dues

Holding

The court rejected the applicant's contention that the judgment was unclear on the number of members

Reasoning

The applicant argued the judgment was open-ended, allowing the claimant to escalate unionisable members from 44 to 209. The court held this position untrue, referring to paragraphs 13 and 17 of the judgment which stated the figure of 209 for forwarded check-off forms.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution pending appeal may issue where an appeal is filed and security is provided, to avoid rendering the appeal nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 6.10.2022 is granted pending the Applicant's intended appeal, on condition that the Applicant provides a bank guarantee for the performance of the decree to the tune of Kshs 2 Million within 30 days
  2. 2.In default of providing the bank guarantee, execution to proceed

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Appellate Jurisdiction ActSection 7
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
  • Labour Relations ActSection 48(2)
  • Evidence ActSection 112

Cases cited (8)

  • HGE v SM
    [2020] eKLR
  • James Wangalwa and another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    [2012] eKLR
  • National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd v Aquinas Francis Wasike and Another
    [2006] eKLR
  • Victor Ogola v Mary Waithe Kihiu
    [2021] eKLR
  • Butt v Rest Restriction Tribunal
    [1979] eKLR
  • Cecilia Karuru Ngayu v Barclays Bank Of Kenya and another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Mengich t/a Mengich & Co advocates and another v Joseph Mabwai & 10 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Econnet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 7 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 6 of 2020) [2023] KEELRC 1652 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Ruling on Notice of Motion dated 16th November, 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1652/eng@2023-07-06

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