SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Bernard Ogari v Freight in Time Limited [2021] KEELRC 1350 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1350 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
1350
Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1350 (KLR)
Decided
3 June 2021
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeAppealPostureRespondent/Applicant seeks to set aside the award and stay execution pending appealCoramNZIOKI WA MAKAU
The Respondent/Applicant's motion is dismissed with costs to the Claimant

Facts

The Respondent/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion Application seeking to set aside the award and stay execution pending appeal, alleging procedural errors and asserting that the Respondent/Claimant will not be able to refund the decretal sum if the Applicant succeeds in its appeal.

Issues

  • Procedural errors in the Notice of Motion Application
  • Whether the Respondent/Applicant has filed a valid Notice of Appeal

Reasoning

The Court found the Respondent/Applicant's motion to be fatally defective as it did not capture under which provision of the law it was premised and was thus dismissed. The Notice of Appeal was lodged out of time and with inordinate delay, rendering the intended appeal non-existent.

Outcome

Dismissed with costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Rules
Cases cited (1)
  • Nairobi Miscellaneous Application No. 194 of 2018, Blue Nile E.A. Limited & Another v Mabati Rolling Mills Limited
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case