Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCause No E012 of 2021· [2023] KEELRC 1774 (KLR)

Chiuri v Laikipia University & 3 others (Cause E012 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1774 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
25 July 2023
3,327 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court paused a judgment against a public university, but only because it agreed to deposit the full awarded sum within 90 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Hellen Wasilwa, J) on a notice of motion dated 30th March 2023 by the Respondents/Applicants, a public university, seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 6th March 2023, in which the Claimant/Respondent had succeeded, including apparently an order of reinstatement and an award exceeding Kshs 14 million plus costs. The application was brought under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rules 6 and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Applicants argued they would suffer substantial loss because the decretal sum was colossal and their funds are budgetary appropriations per financial year; they offered security but claimed exemption from deposit under Order 42 Rule 8 as a public body. The Respondent opposed, contending no specific loss was shown, the application was premature since costs were untaxed and no decree extracted, and that as a body corporate the Applicant could not shelter under Order 42 Rule 8. She sought partial execution and immediate effect of the reinstatement order. The court found the application filed timeously, treated the filed appeal as evidence of substantial loss and risk of the appeal being rendered nugatory, and, balancing the parties' interests, allowed the stay conditional on deposit of the entire decretal sum into a joint interest-earning account of counsel within 90 days, default permitting execution. Costs were ordered to abide the outcome of the appeal. Ruling delivered virtually on 25th July 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

Unreasonable delay

Holding

The application was filed timeously, satisfying the delay requirement under Order 42 Rule 6(2)

Reasoning

The court found the application filed on 30th March 2023, shortly after the judgment of 6th March 2023, and held this complied with the requirement that the application be made without unreasonable delay.

p. 7
02

Substantial loss

Holding

The filing of an appeal before the Court of Appeal is a good indication of the loss the applicant may suffer if the appeal succeeds but is rendered nugatory

Reasoning

The court was satisfied that execution in the absence of stay could render a successful appeal nugatory, treating the existence of the filed appeal as evidence of substantial loss.

p. 7
03

Security for due performance

Holding

Stay granted conditional on deposit of the entire decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account within 90 days

Reasoning

The applicant had expressed willingness to provide security as the court might direct. Balancing the parties' interests, the court ordered deposit of the full decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account within 90 days, with execution to proceed in default.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for stay of execution filed timeously, with a filed appeal evidencing potential substantial loss, may be granted on conditions as to security to balance the parties' interests

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment/decree delivered on 6th March 2023 granted pending the intended appeal at the Court of Appeal, on condition that the entire decretal sum be deposited in an interest-earning account held in the joint names of counsel on record within 90 days
  2. 2.In default of the deposit, execution may proceed
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A and 1B (referred to in quoted authority)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 94
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6 (including 6(2))
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 8
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12(4)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 29
  • Government Proceedings ActReferred to in submissions regarding statutory bodies

Cases cited (15)

  • James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    [2012] eKLR
  • M'ndaka Mbiuki v James Mbaabu Mugwiria
    [2016] eKLR
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Suncity Properties Limited & others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Teachers Service Commission v Benson Kuria Mwangi
    [2020] eKLR
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979]
  • Congress Rental South Africa v Kenyatta International Convention Centre; Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited & another (Garnishee)
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru & Another
    [1986] eKLR
  • Nicholas Mutuku Mwasuna v Patricia Mueni Kilonzo
    [2022] eKLR
  • Vishram Ravji Halai vs. Thornton & Turpin, Civil Application No. Nai. 15 of 1990
    [1990] KLR 365
  • Francis K Chabari & Another v Mwarania Gaichura Kairubi
    [2022] eKLR
  • Arun C Sharma v Ashana Raikundalai t/a Raikundalai & Co Advocates & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Doshi Iron Mongers Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & Another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Kenya Revenue Authority v Jackson Ruiru
    (supra)
  • Aggrey Lukorito Wasike v Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Titus Muriuki Ndirangu v Beverly School of Kenya Limited
    [2022] eKLR
On appeal from
Court of Appeal (intended appeal from this Court's judgment of 6th March 2023)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chiuri v Laikipia University & 3 others (Cause E012 of 2021) [2023] KEELRC 1774 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Cause No E012 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1774/eng@2023-07-25

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