Simon Otieno Adede, Samson Omondi Chilo, Margaret Awuor Adhiambo , Francis Ochieng Osure, Chrispine Pudo & Mek Sacco Society Ltd v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers [2015] KECA 67 (KLR)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

AT  KISUMU

(CORAM: MUSINGA, GATEMBU & MURGOR, JJ.A)

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 20I5

BETWEEN

SIMON OTIENO ADEDE...…….………………………………………………1ST APPLICANT

SAMSON OMONDI CHILO……………..………………………………….. 2ND APPLICANT

MARGARET AWUOR ADHIAMBO ……....…………………………….…..3RD APPLICANT

FRANCIS OCHIENG OSURE………………..………………………………..4TH APPLICANT

CHRISPINE PUDO…………………………..………………………………… 5TH APPLICANT

MEK SACCO SOCIETY LTD…………….…………………………………..6TH APPLICANT

AND

KENYA UNION OF COMMERCIAL

FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS ………………………………………………RESPONDENT

(An  Application for  unconditional stay of proceedings and  of the court orders of the High  Court of Kenya, Industrial Court at Kisumu (Maureen Onyango, J.) dated 1st  July, 20I5

in

INDUSTRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 167 OF 2014)

**************************************

RULING OF THE COURT

1. The applicants have moved the Court under section 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 5 of the Rules of the Court to stay proceedings in Kisumu Industrial  Court Cause No.  167 of 2015, as well  as an order given  on   1st  July 2015 pending  the  hearing  and  determination  of  Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2015.

2. By an application  by notice  of motion  dated  7th May 2015 presented to the  Employment and Labour  Relations Court at Kisumu in Cause  No. 167 of 2014 under  sections   12 and  13 of Employment  and  Labour  Relations Court Act, 20 14, and  sections  5 and 6 of the Judicature Act, Cap  8, the respondent sought   leave to commence contempt of  court  proceedings against the applicants. Based on that application, the court ordered that contempt  proceedings  would  unnecessarily delay  the   objective   of  the court,  which  is to  ensure speedy  execution of its orders, and  proceeded to  direct  that  the  officials of the  6th applicant  be summoned to court to explain why  they  had not complied   with the orders  issued on  6th November, 20 14. When the  officials appeared   in Court on  1st  July, 2015 pursuant  to  the  summons  issued,  the  trial  judge questioned them  as to whether they  were   aware   of  the  decision  of  the   Court  made  on  6th November, 2014 to which they responded they were  not.    That notwithstanding, the  trial  court ordered the  applicants  to  re-instate the grievants  and  pay their  salaries  and  for  the  matter to be  mentioned  in two  weeks  to  confirm  compliance  and that  their  failure to  attend  would result   in  warrants  of  arrest  being   issued   against   them   and   that   a punishment  by way of fine would  be imposed.

3. The  applicants'  complaint  through  learned  counsel  Mr. Nyawiri was that the orders  issued   by  the   court  were   made   without  according   the applicants  a hearing; that  the  requirements of the  law were  breached  to the extent that the order complained  of may result in the arrest and incarceration of the  applicants  without according  them  due  process;  that there  is  no  evidence  of  the  order  the   applicants   are   said  to   be  in contempt of  having been  served  on  them;  that  applicants have  already filed an appeal  being civil appeal  no. 56  of 20 15 which  will be  rendered nugatory  unless the orders sought  are granted.

4.  Mr.   Atela  representing  the  respondent   strenuously   opposed   the application  and  referred us to  his replying affidavit filed on  24th July 2015 urging  that   the   application   is  completely   devoid   of   merit;   that   the applicants  were   heard   before  the  orders given  on   1st  July 20 15  were issued;  that  the  applicants  have failed without good reasons  to comply with  the  orders of the  court;  that  having regard  to sections  12 of the Employment  and  Labour Relations  Court Act  the  court was  within  its mandate to make orders for enforcement of its orders; that  if the court is inclined to grant the  orders sought  it should  be on terms  that the amount of Kshs. 568,372. 00  and  Kshs. 414,004. 00  payable to  Bernard Ondari and Boniface Ochieng  should  be deposited into court.

5. We   have considered the application, the affidavits and the arguments presented before   us.  The   rationale behind  empowering  the Court to grant relief  under  rule  5(2)(b)  was  captured  by  Githinji  JA  in  Equity Bank Limited vs. West Link Mbo Limited Civil Application No Nai 78 of 20II (Ur. 53/20II), where  he stated:

"It is trite law in dealing with 5(2)(b)  applications the Court exercises discretion as a court of  first instance.... It is clear that  rule 5(2)(b) is a procedural innovation designed   to  empower the court entertain  an interlocutory application for preservation  of the  subject matter of the  appeal   in  order  to ensure the   just  and effective determination of appeals”.

In  Ishmael Kagunyi Thande  v  HFCK   Civil  Application  Nai  No. 157 of 2006 this Court stated:

"The jurisdiction of the Court  under  rule 5(2)(b)  is not  only  original but  also discretionary. Two  principles guide the  court in the  exercise of that  jurisdiction. These principles are now well settled.  For  an  applicant to succeed he  must  not  only  show  his appeal  or  intended appeal  is arguable, but  also that  unless the  court grants him  an injunction or stay as the  case  may be, the success of the  appeal  will be rendered nugatory”.

6. As regards the question   whether the  applicants  have  demonstrated   an arguable case, we think they  have. They say that  no leave was sought  and obtained  prior to the orders complained  of being granted;  that the orders they  are  alleged to have violated  were  not  served  on  them.  We do not think those complaints are frivolous.  As this Court stated in Dennis Mogambi Mong'are vs. Attorney General & others [20 12] eKLR:

"An arguable appeal is not  one that must necessarily succeed; it   is  simply one  that  is  deserving  of  the Court's consideration."

7. As  to   the   question    whether  the   intended   appeal   will  be rendered nugatory  unless we grant  the  orders sought,  both  parties  confirmed  that the  matter is scheduled  for  mention  before  the  Employment  and  Labour Relations  Court tomorrow 29th July 2015 and  that having regard  to  the orders issued on  1st  July  2015, there is a real  risk that  the  applicants  will be  incarcerated  before  they  have had a chance  to  canvass  their  appeal.

We are  persuaded  that  unless we grant  the  orders sought,  and the  court orders the arrest  and incarceration of            the applicants following  the mention;  the  intended  appeal will be rendered nugatory.

8. We  accordingly allow the  applicants'  application  dated  16th July 20 15 and order that  the  orders of the  Employment  and  Labour  Relations  Court given    on   1st  July  2015  Kisumu  in  Cause   No.  167 of  2014  and  the proceedings  in  that  case are hereby  stayed   pending  the hearing  and determination of Civil Appeal  No. 56 of 2015 or  until further orders .of this  Court. We further direct that Civil Appeal No. 56 of 20 15 be fixed for hearing on a priority basis during the term of the court commencing September 20 15. Costs of the application shall abide by the outcome of the appeal.

Dated and Delivered at Busia this 28th  day  of July, 2015.

D.K. MUSINGA

.........................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

S. GATEMBU KAIRU, FCIArb

...........................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

A.K. MURGOR

.........................

JUDGE OF APPEAL

I   certify that this is a true copy of the original.

DEPUTY REGISTRAR