Isiolo County Government & 2 others v Leleruk & 42 others (Civil Application E019 of 2025) [2026] KECA 336 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal paused enforcement of a ruling giving 42 Isiolo County casual workers permanent jobs, until the county's appeal is heard.
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 (not frivolous)
- 2.Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent stay
- 3.Whether public interest favours the grant of stay of execution pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The draft grounds - lack of jurisdiction in the ELRC vis-à-vis section 77 of the County Government Act and the alleged rewriting of employment contracts - are arguable, not idle grounds.
The court examined the draft Memorandum of Appeal and found the jurisdictional challenge grounded on section 77 of the County Government Act and the contention that the Judge rewrote the parties' contracts to be grounds warranting full argument. It reiterated that an arguable ground need not succeed; it need only merit full argument before the Court.
Nugatory value and inability to refund
The respondents did not demonstrate capacity to refund monies paid should the appeal succeed, so execution could render the appeal nugatory.
The applicants contended the respondents' financial status was unascertainable and that they could not refund monies if the appeal succeeded. Citing National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd v Wasike, the court held the evidential burden shifted to the respondents, who made no response. The respondents had not shown they could restore the applicants to their original position.
Public interest
Public interest leaned in favour of the applicants because implementing the judgment would disrupt the county's financial operations.
The applicants argued that converting casual contracts to permanent terms would create chaos, as the county payroll had been cleaned up and budgetary allocations made. The court accepted that the county's financial operations might become chaotic, tipping public interest in favour of stay, an additional consideration in this jurisdiction's emerging stay jurisprudence.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay of execution pending appeal must demonstrate that the appeal is arguable and that it would be rendered nugatory absent stay, with public interest as an additional necessary consideration.
- Once an applicant shows a reasonable fear that a respondent cannot refund the decretal sum, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to show what resources he has.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 24th January 2025 and the resultant orders in Meru ELRC Petition EO10 of 2023, pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, Meru
- Petition EO10 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (stay of execution pending 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.
For an applicant to succeed in this Court in an application for stay of execution pending appeal, it must, firstly, demonstrate that the appeal, or intended appeal, as the case may be, is arguable, which is the same as saying that the appeal is not frivolous.
As has been held by this Court in various pronouncements an arguable ground on appeal is not one that will succeed, it is one that ought to be fully argued before the Court for determination
Once an applicant expresses a reasonable fear that a respondent would be unable to pay back the decretal sum, the evidential burden must then shift to the respondent to show what resources he has
The applicants have satisfied the principles that apply in an application of this nature. We allow the Motion. Costs will be in the appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Isiolo County Government & 2 others v Leleruk & 42 others (Civil Application E019 of 2025) [2026] KECA 336 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Court of Appeal Application under Rule 5(2)(b) (Nyeri) arising from Meru ELRC Petition EO10 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/336/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.