Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELRC 2548 (KLR)

Sobayeni & another v Australian Consultants Limited & another (Cause E586 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2548 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
18 October 2024
1,920 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court gave employers 7 more days to appeal a judgment they learned of late, but refused to pause enforcement of that judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By an application dated 21st June 2024, the Applicants sought extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 3rd May 2024, and a stay of execution of that judgment's orders pending appeal. The 2nd Applicant, Ms. Gurgeet Kaur T. S Chana, explained that she learned of the judgment only on 14th May 2024 when her then advocate emailed it to her, and that the advocate thereafter refused to communicate with her, prompting her to instruct new advocates. The Claimants/Respondents opposed, asserting that their former advocate was present at delivery of the judgment, that the Applicants fully participated in the suit, and that granting the application would further prejudice their enjoyment of the fruits of judgment. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Nicholas Kiptoo Korir arap Salat v IEBC and the Court of Appeal's decision in Paul Musili Wambua, Justice Stella Rutto found the 48-day delay not inordinate, noting the Applicants had promptly engaged new counsel. Although the court observed, citing Rajesh Rughani, that blaming an advocate alone is insufficient, it gave the Applicants the benefit of doubt. Following Sokoro Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v Mwamburi, it held the interests of justice favoured ventilation of grievances. The prayer for stay of execution was refused as premature, no Notice of Appeal having been filed. The application was allowed in terms of prayer 3, with leave to file and serve the Notice of Appeal within 7 days, and no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal

Holding

The 48-day delay was not inordinate; the Applicants were granted the benefit of doubt and leave to file the Notice of Appeal

Reasoning

The court applied the Salat and Wambua principles: length of and reason for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and whether the application was brought without undue delay. The Applicants attributed the delay to their erstwhile advocate, who only emailed the judgment on 14th May 2024 and then refused to communicate. Although there was no evidence the Applicants tried to reach the former advocate, they promptly instructed new advocates who filed the application, so the delay was not inordinate and justice favoured granting leave.

p. 3
02

Stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

Refused because the intended appeal had not yet been filed

Reasoning

The court held that a stay of execution pending appeal cannot issue where no appeal is yet on record. Since leave to file the Notice of Appeal had only just been granted and the Notice was yet to be filed, there was no pending appeal upon which such a stay could be anchored.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party, requiring a satisfactory explanation for the delay and consideration of prejudice to the respondent
  • Mere accusation of an advocate's failure to inform the client is not, by itself, an excusable mistake; the client has a duty to pursue the matter

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicants are granted leave to file and serve a Notice of Appeal within 7 days from the date of the delivery of the Ruling
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (4)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Korir arap Salat v IEBC and 7 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Paul Musili Wambua v Attorney General & 2 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Rajesh Rughani v Fifty Investment Ltd. & Another
    (2005) eKLR
  • Sokoro Savings and Credit Co-operative Society Ltd v Mwamburi
    (Civil Application E032 of 2022) [2023] KECA 381 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent discretion to extend time under the applicable rules; application for extension of time and stay of execution pending appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sobayeni & another v Australian Consultants Limited & another (Cause E586 of 2020) [2024] KEELRC 2548 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/2548/eng@2024-10-18

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