Elite Tools Limited v Murei (Civil Appeal (Application) E564 of 2025) [2026] KECA 230 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to halt payment of a Kshs.813,340 work injury award because the employer never showed the worker couldn't refund the money if the appeal succeeded.
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 intended appeal is arguable
- 2.Whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay of execution is not granted
- 3.Whether the Court should set aside the conditional stay orders issued by the ELRC and reduce the security deposit
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal is arguable
The Court found the appeal arguable for purposes of the first limb, giving the applicant the benefit of doubt on the complaints of being condemned unheard, partial payments and inadequate evaluation of evidence
Applying the settled test that an arguable appeal need not be one that would succeed, the Court considered the grounds in the memorandum of appeal - alleged breach of natural justice, partial payments and inadequate evaluation of evidence - sufficient to raise arguable issues, and so gave the applicant the benefit of doubt.
Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay
The nugatory-aspect limb was not satisfied; the applicant made no assertion that the respondent could not refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded
The Court held that the applicant's own financial difficulties were not the relevant consideration; what matters is the respondent's financial ability to refund the judgment amount in the event the appeal succeeds. The applicant made no such assertion, and had already obtained conditional stay orders in the ELRC.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay under Rule 5(2)(b) must satisfy both limbs: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory if stay is not granted; financial difficulty of the judgment debtor alone does not suffice, the relevant concern being the ability of the decree-holder to refund the decretal sum
- An arguable appeal is not one that will necessarily succeed
Court orders
#- 1.The application for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for stay of execution pending appeal), together with provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules cited by the applicant
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ELRC ruling pending the intended appeal
The applicant did not demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; it did not assert the respondent could not refund the judgment amount
Setting aside the ELRC conditional stay orders and reduction of security from Kshs.813,340 to Kshs.411,840
No material was placed before the Court to justify exercise of discretion in the applicant's favour
Costs
The application fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
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.
The application fails and is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
The concern, however, should be the financial ability of the respondent. The applicant does not assert that the respondent would not be able to refund the judgment amount in the event that the appeal succeeds.
Given that an arguable appeal is not one that will necessarily succeed (Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui vs. Tony Ketter & 5 Others [2013] eKLR), we give the applicant the benefit of doubt in finding that the appeal is not frivolous.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the name or case number of the appellant/applicant employer, nor the case number or neutral citation of this ruling; identification of the case relies on party description only
The judgment records that the applicant relied on inapplicable provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules in addition to Rule 5(2)(b), but does not specify which provisions or how this affected the application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Elite Tools Limited v Murei (Civil Appeal (Application) E564 of 2025) [2026] KECA 230 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/230/eng@2026-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.