Bakery Confectionary Food Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (K) v Kenafric Industries Limited (Cause E687 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 27 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court paused execution of a judgment against Kenafric Industries because its appeal to the Court of Appeal is already pending.
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 applicants have demonstrated that the orders of stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 10th December 2021 and decree issued on 22nd February 2022 pending appeal are merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal met the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2)
The application was allowed: the application was made without unreasonable delay, the applicant was willing to provide security, and the court held it should avoid rendering the pending appeal nugatory notwithstanding imperfect demonstration of substantial loss.
The court set out the settled principles under Order 42 Rule 6(2) and the overriding objective in sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act. On delay, the application filed on 23rd February 2022 following judgment of 10th December 2021 was found not to be unreasonably delayed. The applicant was willing to provide security, though it had not computed the decretal amount despite letters since December 2021. On substantial loss, the applicant had not illustrated how failure to stay would cause loss beyond asserting it was a going concern, and most grievants remained in employment. Nevertheless, since an appeal had been filed at the Court of Appeal, the court held it should avoid rendering that appeal nugatory and allowed the application.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution; the applicant must satisfy the conditions in Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- The conditions for stay pending appeal are substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment given on 10th December 2021 and the decree issued on 22nd February 2022 pending hearing and determination of Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E077 of 2022
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 22 Rule 22 and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
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.
It is trite law that an appeal does not operate as an automatic stay of execution.
Accordingly, it is the court’s considered view that the application dated February 22, 2022 has merit and is hereby allowed
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's final orders do not specify the terms of the stay, the security to be provided (if any), or the duration; it merely allows the application without detailing the operative order.
The judgment inconsistently labels the parties, variously describing Kenafric Industries Limited as 'Appellant', 'Respondent/Applicant' and 'Applicant', and the Union as 'Claimant/Respondent' and 'Claimant/Decree holder'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bakery Confectionary Food Manufacturing and Allied Workers Union (K) v Kenafric Industries Limited (Cause E687 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 27 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 22nd February 2022 (in proceedings giving rise to Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E077 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/27/eng@2025-01-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.