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

Rose Sang Tarus v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & another [2022] KEELRC 912 (KLR)

[2022] KEELRC 912 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
912
Citation
[2022] KEELRC 912 (KLR)
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

TypeApplication for Stay of ExecutionPostureRespondent/Applicant seeks to stay execution of judgment pending appealCoramLINNET NDOLO
The Applicant's application fails and is dismissed with costs

Facts

Claimant executed a judgment and proclamation by 2nd Respondent, Mbusera Auctioneers, which was stayed by the Applicant's letter dated 19th October 2021. A pending application at the Court of Appeal seeks stay of execution.

Issues

  • Whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant the Applicant's plea
  • Whether the execution of the judgment by the Claimant is in violation of the Civil Procedure Act

Reasoning

The application is res judicata and the Court of Appeal is now fully seized of the matter. The trial court is functus officio. The Court of Appeal is the appropriate forum to raise any issues regarding the matter.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Interim orders granted on 27th October 2021 are set aside

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal (1982) KLR 417
Cases cited (1)
  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 others (2015) eKLR
⚠ 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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case