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 19th December 2024/19th February 2024 arising from intended appeal against Nakuru MCELRC 217 of 2022· [2024] KEELRC 980 (KLR)

Mijengo Investments Limited v Kemunto (Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 980 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya at Nakuru (appellate jurisdiction)
2 May 2024
4,110 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~16 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court paused enforcement of a Kshs 304,747 unfair termination award, but only because the employer agreed to deposit the full amount in court within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Mijengo Investments Limited, the unsuccessful defendant before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (Hon. Ruth Kefa Chebesio, judgment of 19th December 2023 awarding Reah Kemunto Kshs 304,747 plus costs in a claim for unfair termination by redundancy), moved the court by Notice of Motion under sections 1A, 1B and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rules 6 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking stay of execution of the decree pending appeal, citing unlawful attachment by Gillette Traders Auctioneers and the applicant's claim that the attached properties were its tools of trade. It also sought extension of time to lodge the appeal, blaming the delay on the registry's failure to supply typed proceedings. The respondent opposed, asserting the applicant was a blue chip company that would suffer no substantial loss, that the application was an afterthought to deny her the fruits of judgment, and proposed in the alternative that half the decretal sum be paid to her and the balance deposited in a joint interest-earning account. Both sides filed submissions citing the settled Order 42 Rule 6 principles on substantial loss, delay and security. The court (Hellen Wasilwa, J) held that since the Notice of Appeal was filed on the day of judgment, the application for extension of time was superfluous, and granted stay on condition that the entire decretal sum be deposited in court within 30 days, failing which execution would issue, with costs to abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted

Holding

Stay granted conditionally on deposit of the entire decretal sum in court within 30 days, with execution to issue in default

Reasoning

The court observed that the applicant had already filed a Notice of Appeal on the day judgment was delivered, so the appeal was properly on foot and the extension application was unnecessary. The only live question was the stay. The court exercised its discretion under Order 42 Rule 6 and, balancing the applicant's claim of substantial loss against the respondent's right to enjoy the fruits of judgment, conditioned the stay on the applicant depositing the whole decretal sum in court within 30 days.

p. 8
02

Whether extension of time to file the appeal was necessary

Holding

The extension application was superfluous because the Notice of Appeal was filed on the same day as the judgment

Reasoning

The applicant explained that delay in lodging the substantive appeal was caused by the unavailability of typed proceedings. The court noted the judgment date, that a Notice of Appeal was filed on the same day, and held that the Notice of Appeal amounted to an appeal in itself, leaving the applicant only to compile the record; hence leave to appeal out of time was not required.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Filing a Notice of Appeal on the day of judgment constitutes an appeal in itself, and an application to file the appeal out of time is unnecessary
  • A stay of execution pending appeal may be granted on condition that the decretal sum is deposited in court within a fixed period, failing which execution may issue

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application to file an appeal out of time is declared superfluous since a Notice of Appeal was filed on the same day as the judgment
  2. 2.Stay of execution granted on condition that the entire decretal sum be deposited in court within 30 days, in default execution to issue
  3. 3.Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru
MCELRC 217 of 2022 (Reah Kemunto v Mijengo Investments Limited)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rules 6 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mijengo Investments Limited v Kemunto (Miscellaneous Application E010 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 980 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 19th December 2024/19th February 2024 arising from intended appeal against Nakuru MCELRC 217 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/980/eng@2024-05-02

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