Kisii County Assembly Service Board & another v Ondieki & another (Civil Application E136 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1994 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal agreed to fast-track Kisii County Assembly's stay application after execution began, but has not yet decided whether the judgment enforcement stops.
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 application dated 28th August, 2025 should be certified as urgent notwithstanding an earlier direction declining certification
- 2.Whether a stay of execution of the ELRC judgment and decree should be granted pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether a judge can revisit a prior decision declining to certify a matter urgent
Yes, where new facts material to the urgency question were not before the judge when the earlier direction was made, the judge may review those directions
The judge had earlier declined to certify the application urgent. The applicants later demonstrated that execution of the decree had commenced through judicial review proceedings for mandamus, and that a contempt application had been filed against the 2nd applicant. These facts were not available at the time of the original direction. The judge therefore reviewed the earlier directions and certified the application as urgent.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge may review and vary an earlier direction declining certification of urgency where new facts emerge that were not available when the earlier direction was made
Court orders
#- 1.The Court reviewed its earlier directions and certified the application dated 28th August, 2025 as urgent
- 2.The application to be set down for inter partes hearing as soon as possible
- 3.Costs shall be in 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 at Kisumu
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in the excerpt; the application arises from an intended appeal against an ELRC judgment and decree
Relief refused
#Substantive stay of execution of the ELRC judgment and decree
The Court did not determine the stay prayer at this stage; it only certified urgency and directed an inter partes hearing, noting the applicants' submissions addressed only the stay prayer
Costs
Costs shall be in 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.
In the premises, I am inclined to review my earlier directions, and now certify the application as urgent and be set down for interpartes hearing as soon as possible considering that all the parties have filed their respective submissions on the substantive application.
Costs shall be in the appeal.
All these new facts were not available to me at the time I declined to certify the application urgent.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties' names, the appeal number and the lower-court case number are not stated; the judgment excerpt only refers to 'the applicants' and 'the respondents'
The document is a single-judge directions ruling on urgency certification, not a full bench appellate judgment; the disposition does not resolve the appeal or the stay application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kisii County Assembly Service Board & another v Ondieki & another (Civil Application E136 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1994 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 28th August, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1994/eng@2025-11-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.