Ready Consultancy Limited v Mosomi (Appeal E075 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2383 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court allowed a late appeal and stopped execution of a KSh 1.29 million judgment, but only if the appellant deposits half the amount within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court should enlarge time for filing the appeal out of time under Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act
- 2.Whether stay of execution of the judgment in CM ELRC NO. 409/18 should be granted under Order 42 Rule 6
Key legal issues
#Extension of time to file appeal under Section 79G
Delay of about four months was unreasonable and the Appellant was not approaching the court with clean hands, but in the interest of justice the draft Memorandum of Appeal was deemed duly filed
The court applied Section 79G and the Thuita Mwangi factors. The judgment was delivered in the presence of both advocates on 30th November, 2023; the delay was about four months. Judgments are posted on the CTS for advocates' access, and the Appellant did not attach any letter to the court requesting the typed judgment, leading to the conclusion that the Appellant knew of the judgment. Still, the interest of justice favoured granting a right to be heard on the intended appeal.
Stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6
Stay granted on condition that half the decretal sum be deposited in a joint interest-earning account in the names of the advocates within 30 days
Having allowed the appeal to be filed out of time, execution before the determination of the appeal would render the appeal nugatory if it succeeded. The court applied the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6 and the principles in Joseph Odide Walome v David Mbadi Akello and James Wangalwa & Anor v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto on substantial loss, balancing the interests of both parties through a conditional stay.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal may be admitted out of time if the appellant satisfies the court that he had good and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time
- Stay of execution requires substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay and security for due performance of the decree
Court orders
#- 1.The Appellant's draft Memorandum of Appeal is deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite court fee
- 2.Stay of execution of the judgment in CM ELRC NO. 409/18 granted on condition that the applicant deposits half the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account in the name of the advocates within 30 days
- 3.Mention on 11th November, 2024 to confirm compliance and give directions on hearing and disposal of the appeal
- 4.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC - CM ELRC NO. 409/18)
- CM ELRC NO. 409/18
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 3A, 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 6 and Order 22 Rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Stay of proclamation of the Applicant's goods by M/S Nairobi Connection Service Ltd (unconditional)
Stay granted only on condition of depositing half the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account
Costs
Costs shall be in the cause.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the upshot the Appellant's draft Memorandum of Appeal is deemed duly filed upon payment of requisite court fee.
The Court therefore grants a stay of execution on condition that the applicant deposits half the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account in the name of the advocates within 30 days of this ruling.
The Appellant is therefore not approaching the Court with clean hands.
The matter is set for mention on 11th November, 2024 for mention to confirm compliance and directions on the hearing and disposal of the appeal.
Costs shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The Appellant's deponent shares a name with the Appellant; the Appellant company is not named in the judgment, and the parties and the original plaintiff/respondent are not fully identified by name
Discrepancy in the decretal sum stated by the Appellant versus the Respondent's stated judgment amount
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ready Consultancy Limited v Mosomi (Appeal E075 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 2383 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). CM ELRC NO. 409/18 (Appeal from that suit; application dated 22nd March, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2383/eng@2024-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.