Abdikarim v Adan & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E582 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1325 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to halt the re-recruitment of an Assistant Chief because the job's advertised salary meant any loss could be paid back in money.
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 and not frivolous
- 2.Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory if stay of execution of the ELRC ruling and a temporary injunction are not granted
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal
The appeal is arguable and not frivolous; one arguable point suffices, including whether age can without statutory basis ground nullification of a public appointment
The court examined the memorandum of appeal and identified a question meriting appellate consideration: whether age, absent statutory basis, can lawfully nullify a public appointment. Applying established authority that a single arguable point suffices, the court was persuaded the appeal was not frivolous.
Nugatory aspect / whether loss is compensable
No nugatory aspect shown; the salary scale was advertised, loss was easily quantifiable and reparable, and the applicant claimed only personal loss, not public interest
Applying Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui v Tony Ketter, the court asked whether what is sought to be stayed is reversible or compensable by damages. Because the salary scale for the post was stated in the advertisement, any loss was quantifiable. The applicant also failed to assert public interest in staying execution over a public office, resting only on apprehended personal loss.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for stay pending appeal must show that the appeal, if successful, will be rendered nugatory; where the loss is quantifiable and reparable in damages, nugatory aspect is not established, and a single arguable point suffices to show the appeal is arguable
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26th September 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over the ELRC, with an interlocutory application for stay of execution and temporary injunction pending appeal (rules of this Court invoked per practice; no specific article stated in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the ELRC ruling of 23rd September 2025 pending appeal
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; the loss was quantifiable and reparable
Temporary injunction restraining advertising, recruiting or filling the position of Assistant Chief II for Hadado South Sub-Location
Failed together with the application for want of a demonstrated nugatory aspect
Costs
No orders as to costs; each party to bear their own costs of the application
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.
One arguable point sufices. We are persuaded that the appeal is not frivolous. It is arguable.
whether an appeal will be rendered nugatory depends on whether what is sought to be stayed if allowed to happen is reversible; or if it is not reversible whether damages will reasonably compensate the party aggrieved
Consequently, the application dated 26th September 2025 fails and is hereby dismissed.
Given that the applicant’s bid is an endeavor to serve the public, we make no orders as to the costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The copy bears an asterisk against the delivery date and the chronology is internally inconsistent: the application is dated 26th September 2025, the application was heard on 24th November 2025, yet delivery is stated as 10th July 2026
The pleading describes the applicant as appointed Assistant Chief while the advertisement required candidates to be at least 30 years old, and the judgment itself records the appointment was 'as the Assistant Chief of Hadado South Sub-Location' versus 'Assistant Chief II' - minor internal inconsistency in the post title
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdikarim v Adan & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E582 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1325 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application (not stated on the copy; ruling on application dated 26th September 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1325/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.