Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRCA E004 of 2024· [2024] KEELRC 943 (KLR)

Akshar Logistics Limited v Ekasiba (Appeal E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 943 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 April 2024
2,767 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed an employer's bid to pause paying a termination award because the employer tried to seek both review and appeal of the same judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa (M. Mbarũ J) on a notice of motion dated 9 February 2024 brought under Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking stay of execution of a judgment and decree delivered on 4 September 2023 in Mombasa CMELRC No.386 of 2018, in which the respondent was awarded Ksh.697,692 for unlawful termination. The applicant, whose review application of 2 October 2023 had been dismissed by a ruling of 7 December 2023, argued that the appeal had a high chance of success and raised triable issues. The respondent opposed, demonstrating that the applicant had already filed a separate appeal, Mombasa ELRCA E103 of 2023, against the same judgment, with a replica memorandum of appeal, none of which was disclosed in the application. The court held that the judgment of 4 September 2023 was not the subject of the present appeal, which lay against the ruling of 7 December 2023 declining review; that a party cannot simultaneously appeal and seek review of the same judgment, having regard to Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45, Section 17 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016; and that by electing review, the applicant lost the right of appeal against the original judgment. The material non-disclosure of the parallel appeal also denied the applicant standing. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent, and the appeal itself was held incapable of standing as couched.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution could issue where the appeal before the court is against a ruling declining review, not against the judgment sought to be stayed

Holding

No. The judgment of 4 September 2023 is not the subject of this appeal; the appeal is against the ruling of 7 December 2023 dismissing review.

Reasoning

The court noted that the judgment of 4 September 2023 and the ruling of 7 December 2023 have each resulted in a separate appeal, and neither can replace the other as the foundation for a stay of the judgment. The judgment whose execution was to be stayed is already the subject of Mombasa ELRCA E103 of 2023.

p. 3
02

Whether a party may appeal and seek review of the same judgment simultaneously

Holding

No. A party must elect one remedy; exercising review and failing, the right of appeal against the original judgment is lost.

Reasoning

Relying on Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 45 Rules 1 and 2, and precedent including Serephen Nyasani Menge v Rispah Onsase and Gerald Kithu Muchanje v Catherine Muthoni Ngare, the court held that permitting both remedies would be forum shopping and an abuse of process; litigation cannot be conducted on trial and error.

p. 5
03

Effect of material non-disclosure of a parallel appeal

Holding

Non-disclosure of the existence of Mombasa ELRCA E103 of 2023 denied the applicant proper standing to urge the application.

Reasoning

The applicant failed to disclose the prior appeal arising from the same judgment, whose memorandum of appeal was a replica of the present one. This non-disclosure was material and prevented the court from entertaining the stay application on its merits.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot pursue an appeal and an application for review of the same decree or order concurrently; electing review and having it dismissed extinguishes the right to appeal the original judgment.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 9 February 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.The appeal herein suffers the same fate and cannot stand as couched
  3. 3.The respondent is awarded the costs of these proceedings

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rules 1 and 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 80
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011Section 17
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016Rule 33

Cases cited (9)

  • James Wangalwa & another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    [2012] eKLR
  • Benisa Limited v John Ngotho Miana
    [2022] eKLR
  • JK Industries v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & another
    [1987] eKLR
  • Kenya Shell Ltd v Kibiru & another
    [1986] eKLR
  • Ferrotech Industries Ltd v Mwadziwe Ali Hare
  • Serephen Nyasani Menge v Rispah Onsase
    [2018] eKLR
  • Madowo v Oluja & another
    (Civil Appeal E557 of 2022) [2023] KEHC 1205 (KLR) (Civ) (24 February 2023) (Ruling)
  • Gerald Kithu Muchanje v Catherine Muthoni Ngare & another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Martha Wambui v Irene Wanjiru Mwangi & Another
    (2015) eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Mombasa (Employment and Labour Relations)
Mombasa CMELRC No.386 of 2018
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Akshar Logistics Limited v Ekasiba (Appeal E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 943 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). ELRCA E004 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/943/eng@2024-04-18

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