Judgment[2023] KEHC 27228
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Aden v Republic (Criminal Revision E409 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16427 (KLR) (23 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16427 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT ELDORET CRIMINAL REVISION E409 OF 2024 RN NYAKUNDI, J DECEMBER 23, 2024 BETWEEN ISSA ADEN ................................................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court granted a stay of execution of a judgment in favor of the Respondent, awarding Kshs 370,525 as compensation, notice pay, severance pay, costs, and interest. The Applicant, dissatisfied with the judgment, filed an appeal and sought stay pending appeal, arguing that without stay, the appeal would be nugatory and cause substantial loss due to the Respondent's lack of income. The court found the Applicant met the conditions for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including demonstrating substantial loss risk and timely application, and ordered the decretal sum deposited within 30 days.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against a magistrate's ruling in Ngong CMEL No. E008 of 2021, arguing the magistrate erred in law by exercising ordinary civil jurisdiction instead of special employment jurisdiction under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. The appeal centered on issues including improper application of procedural rules, failure to recognize employment records as employer-held documents, and late objections to document production. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the magistrate correctly applied employment law and procedural rules, noting the Respondent's objection to document production was timely and the documents were not part of the employer's records as required by the Employment Act.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Employment and Labour Relations Court in Kenya dismissed an application for review of its March 2023 judgment, as the applicant failed to establish a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the need for clarification, or a sufficient reason for review under the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011. The court found that the applicant's claims regarding service pay, interest, statutory deductions, damages for unfair termination, and arithmetic errors were matters of discretion that could only be challenged on appeal, not through review. The court held that the applicant was attempting to invoke review jurisdiction for issues that should have been raised on appeal, which is impermissible under the law.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against the Magistrates' Court judgment on service gratuity claims, challenging three issues: (1) whether the University correctly computed gratuities, (2) whether the University wrongly computed gratuities leading to an erroneous award, and (3) whether a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) can apply retrospectively. The Appellant argued that the Magistrates lacked jurisdiction as the dispute was not a trade dispute under the Labour Relations Act, the CBA does not apply retrospectively, and the computation method was incorrect. The Respondent countered that the Magistrates had jurisdiction under Gazette Notice No. 6024, the CBA applies prospectively, and employees are entitled to 31% of basic salary per annum as per clause 40(c) of the 2013-2017 CBA. The court determined the Magistrates had jurisdiction, the CBA does not apply retrospectively, and the computation should follow the 2013-2017 CBA's terms.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court reviewed an appeal against a magistrate's judgment in a labor dispute where the appellant challenged the award of one month's salary in lieu of notice, house allowance, and six months' compensation for unfair termination. The court found the appellant failed to prove the respondent absconded duties, as they did not produce evidence of attempts to contact the respondent after the sick leave ended, and the termination was deemed unlawful and unfair under the Employment Act. The court upheld the trial court's findings that the termination was unfair and unlawful, and the awards were justified.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court allowed the appeal against the trial judge's apportionment of liability at 50%:50% between the appellant and respondent in a workplace injury case. The appellant challenged the trial judge's finding that they were contributory negligent due to being in a hurry and not seeing spilt oil, arguing no evidence was presented by the respondent to prove the appellant's contributory negligence. The court held the trial judge erred in law and fact by apportioning liability equally, as the respondent failed to demonstrate compliance with occupational safety duties and did not provide evidence of the appellant's contributory negligence. The court substituted the liability order with 100% liability against the respondent.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court considered an application for enlargement of time to file an appeal and stay execution of a decree from a prior judgment. The applicant, who had undergone restructuring and leadership changes, claimed it was aggrieved by the judgment and final orders and sought to extend time to file an appeal, with the argument that the delay was due to restructuring and failure to communicate the judgment to new management. The respondent opposed, stating the appeal was filed late with no explanation, and the applicant had not filed the appeal within the statutory period. The court granted the application for stay pending appeal, finding the applicant had reasonable grounds for delay and the appeal was meritorious, with no prejudice to the respondent if the orders were granted.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court granted a stay of execution for the Applicant, who had filed an appeal against a judgment awarding Kshs 483,887.09 to the Respondent. The Applicant argued that if the Respondent executed the decree and the appeal succeeded, they would lack assets to restitute the Applicant. The court found the Applicant met the criteria for stay under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules: substantial loss (due to inability to restitute assets post-appeal), timely application (filed within 30 days of the judgment), and willingness to deposit decretal funds within 60 days. The stay was granted with the condition that the decretal sum be deposited in court within 60 days.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment in Milimani CMELRC No.E253 of 2020, arguing that the trial magistrate erred in finding the Respondent was unaware of the Appellant's pregnancy, misdirected on the issue of pregnancy notification, failed to award damages for termination due to pregnancy, disregarded the Respondent's April 2020 document, and misapplied discrimination principles. The Appellant claimed termination was due to pregnancy, the Respondent did not prove discrimination, and damages were too low. The appellate court reanalyzed the evidence and upheld the trial court's judgment, finding the Respondent's termination reasons fair, the Appellant not terminated due to pregnancy discrimination, and the damages award reasonable.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court dismissed the Claimant's application for a stay of execution of a judgment dated 26th January 2023, finding it incompetent, a non-starter, and an abuse of court process. The Claimant had sought a stay pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, but the court determined that the Claimant failed to establish substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the execution process had not commenced and the Claimant did not demonstrate how paying the Respondent's pending gratuity would constitute substantial loss. The court emphasized that a judgment debtor status does not equate to substantial loss, and the Claimant's application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The Appellant appealed against the Magistrate's judgment in George Mabele Sifuna v University of Nairobi, challenging jurisdiction, procedural fairness in termination, and reliefs granted. The court found the trial court had jurisdiction as the matter was partly heard before the Industrial Court came into effect in 2011. The court held the termination was procedurally flawed due to lack of proper council resolution and communication, and the Appellant failed to follow fair procedure. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's decision that the termination was wrongful and the reliefs (terminal dues, damages) were correctly calculated.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court ordered the service of an application dated 8th August 2023 on the respondent, who was given 14 days to respond. The matter was scheduled for hearing and disposal on 26th September 2023 before the docket court for directions.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The court dismissed the appellant's appeal against the trial court's judgment that the appellant had received the hearing notice and was duly served but failed to attend court. The appellant's appeal challenged the trial magistrate's findings on service of notice, consideration of evidence, and compliance with constitutional provisions. The court found no record of the appellant's submissions supporting the appeal and upheld the trial court's conclusion that the appellant was served but absent without valid explanation. The appeal was dismissed with costs due to the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence or arguments.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The High Court of Kenya granted an order requiring the applicant to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account within 30 days, following the applicant's motion seeking stay of execution of a judgment. The court found the applicant's application for stay of execution pending appeal was incompetent under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial loss or financial disability. The court emphasized the need for substantial loss and timely application, noting the respondent's financial stability as evidenced by ownership of vehicles. The applicant was ordered to provide security for the decretal sum, and costs would follow the appeal outcome.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment, arguing that the trial magistrate erred in apportioning 90% liability to the appellant, disregarding evidence showing the first respondent was employed by the second respondent, and awarding excessive damages. The court found that the first respondent was an employee of the second respondent, so the appellant was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship. The appeal succeeded, setting aside the judgment against the appellant and directing the first respondent to pursue enforcement against the second respondent. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Division and case type: Appeals DivisionAppeals
The appellant appealed against the trial court's judgment, arguing that the magistrate improperly analyzed the evidence, failed to consider material evidence, and erred in finding the appellant absconded duty. The appellant claimed the trial court overlooked key facts, including the appellant's suspension and dismissal process, and the respondent's lack of evidence to justify termination. The court upheld the trial court's decision, noting the appellant did not adequately discharge the burden of proving unfair termination under Section 47(5) of the Employment Act, and the proceedings were sufficiently recorded despite sparse testimony.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Alukhaba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal E007 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) (23 December 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL APPEAL E007 OF 2021 WM MUSYOKA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 BETWEEN JOHN ALUKHABA ................................................................................. APPELLANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ....................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Alukhaba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal E007 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) (23 December 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL APPEAL E007 OF 2021 WM MUSYOKA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 BETWEEN JOHN ALUKHABA ................................................................................. APPELLANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ....................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2012) [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) (30 December 2013) (Judgment) Marcella Nyabonyi Otieno v Republic [2013] eKLR Neutral citation: [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISII CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 OF 2012 EN MAINA & SO OKONG'O, JJ DECEMBER 30, 2013 BETWEEN MARCELLA NYABONYI OTIENO ...................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ........................................................................................