Mijengo Investments Limited v Oduor (Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1139 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court halted execution of a KSh 460,000 judgment against an employer, but only because the company agreed to deposit the full amount in court 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 Applicant has demonstrated that the orders of stay of execution pending appeal are merited
- 2.Whether the Applicant has demonstrated that the order for grant of leave to file an appeal out of time is merited
- 3.Who bears the costs of the present application
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted
Stay granted on condition that the entire decretal sum is deposited in court within 30 days, failing which execution to issue.
The court considered the parties' averments and submissions on Order 42 rule 6(2): substantial loss, delay and security. Noting the Notice of Appeal was filed on the day of judgment, the court found the extension prayer unnecessary and proceeded to set conditions for stay, balancing the applicant's right of appeal against the respondent's enjoyment of the fruits of judgment, by directing deposit of the decretal sum in court within 30 days.
Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
Refused as unnecessary/superfluous because the Notice of Appeal was filed on the day of the judgment.
The applicant attributed delay to non-supply of typed proceedings. The court observed the judgment was delivered on 29th November 2023 and the Notice of Appeal was filed the same day, which operates as an appeal; the applicant only needed to file the record. Leave was therefore superfluous.
Legal principles established
#- Filing a Notice of Appeal in time is sufficient; an application for extension of time to file an appeal becomes unnecessary where a Notice of Appeal has been lodged within the prescribed period.
- The court may grant stay of execution on terms, conditional on the decretal sum being deposited in court.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer for leave to file appeal out of time declined as superfluous (Notice of Appeal already filed)
- 2.Stay of execution granted on condition that the entire decretal sum be deposited in court within 30 days
- 3.In default of deposit, execution to issue
- 4.Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru
- MCELRC 220 of 2022 (Claudio Oduor v Mijengo Investments Limited / Reah Kemunto v Mijengo Investments Limited)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 63(e) and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rules 6 and 2 and Order 50 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Leave to appeal out of time
A Notice of Appeal had already been filed on the day of judgment, so the extension was unnecessary
Costs
Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.
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.
That said and done what remains is the condition of stay which I set and direct that the entire decretal sum be deposited in court within 30 days. In default execution to issue. Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.
The fact of filing their Notice of Appeal is as an appeal in itself and all that the applicant needs to do is proceed to file the record and proceed with the appeal.
The application to file an appeal out of time is therefore superfiuous.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the judgment in the lower court: the motion seeks stay of a judgment 'delivered on 4th October, 2023' while the supporting affidavit and the court refer to judgment 'delivered on 29th November 2023'; the respondent also refers to a judgment delivered on 4th October 2023.
Conflicting names of the decree-holder/respondent: the motion names 'Claudio Oduor v Mijengo Investments Limited' while the supporting affidavit and respondent's submissions refer to 'Reah Kemunto v Mijengo Investments Limited'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mijengo Investments Limited v Oduor (Miscellaneous Application E009 of 2024) [2024] KEELRC 1139 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2024 (appeal against judgment in Nakuru MCELRC No. 220 of 2022, Claudio Oduor v Mijengo Investments Limited). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/1139/eng@2024-05-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.