The Speaker, County Assembly of Laikipia & 1 other v Team Laikipia Community Based Organization . 1st Respondent Francis Chubi Mwangi & 1 other
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause an employment ruling against the Laikipia County Assembly, holding that money can compensate any loss and new evidence must be produced with diligence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Test for stay of execution pending appeal under rule 5(2)(b)
The applicants must establish both an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay. The arguable-appeal limb was satisfied (jurisdiction, non-joinder and orders-not-prayed-for grounds were not frivolous), but the nugatory limb failed because the claimed loss is compensable in damages.
The court reiterated the twin principles long settled in decisions such as David Morton Silversein vs. Atsango Chesoni and Yellow Horse Inns Ltd. It held that parties on a rule 5(2)(b) application are not to ventilate the merits. Although arguability was made out on several grounds, the applicants showed no prejudice beyond pecuniary loss to the interested party, which damages can compensate, so the second limb failed and stay was refused.
Whether leave to adduce additional evidence should be granted
Leave was refused. The additional evidence was always in the applicants' possession and could have been produced with reasonable diligence; the Supreme Court's Mahamud vs. Mohamad guidelines and the 'sufficient reason' standard were not met.
The court applied the eleven-principle framework in Mahamud vs. Mohamad (Supreme Court) and the guidelines in Attorney General vs. Torino Enterprises requiring that the evidence not have been obtainable by reasonable diligence, that it would probably have influenced the result, and that it be credible. The documents were always available; blaming former advocates was unavailing, especially where the two applicants had separate counsel and either could have availed the documents.
Scope of a rule 5(2)(b) application - merits not ventilated
Issues going to the merits of the intended appeal (jurisdiction of the ELRC, alleged unconstitutionality of creating the office, orders not prayed for) are not determined on a stay application.
The court expressly declined to engage with the applicants' submissions on jurisdiction, natural justice and the legality of creating the Office of the Deputy Clerk - Administrative Services, holding that parties at this interlocutory stage are not meant to ventilate the merits; those grounds mattered only to establish arguability, which they did.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules need only satisfy two principles: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay; one arguable ground suffices.
- Even one arguable ground is sufficient to satisfy the first limb of the rule 5(2)(b) test.
- Pecuniary loss capable of quantification as damages does not satisfy the nugatory-appeal limb of a stay application.
- Additional evidence on appeal will only be admitted where it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before and during the hearing, would probably have an important influence on the result, and is credible; it cannot be used to patch up weaknesses in an unsuccessful party's case.
Court orders
#- 1.The entire notice of motion dated 5th March 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC)
- Petition filed 28th December 2023 (number not stated in the judgment)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 5(2)(b), 31, 43, 44, 45 and 49(1) & (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (interlocutory application; no constitutional or statutory appellate-jurisdiction provision stated)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "The Speaker, County Assembly of Laikipia & 1 other v Team Laikipia Community Based Organization . 1st Respondent Francis Chubi Mwangi & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2135/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.