Murimi v County Government of Kirinyaga & another; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 71 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court paused the enforcement of a reinstatement order for 120 days, protecting the employer's appeal.
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 application for stay of execution was made without unreasonable delay
- 2.Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss
- 3.Whether security for due performance of the decree should be ordered
Key legal issues
#Undue delay
The application made about one month after judgment involved no inordinate delay.
Judgment was entered on 12th September 2024 and the motion was filed on 18th October 2024. The court measured the delay from the date of judgment and found roughly one month to be reasonable, satisfying the delay limb of Order 42 Rule 6(2).
Substantial loss
Reinstatement with back pay would be irreversible and the respondent did not prove capacity to repay, so substantial loss was demonstrated.
The court treated substantial loss as anything rendering an appeal nugatory. Reinstatement with five years' back pay would create an irreversible state of affairs. Relying on NIC Bank v Wasike, the evidential burden shifted to the respondent to prove ability to repay; failing that, substantial loss was established on a balance of probability.
Security
No security ordered because the decretal amount is unquantified.
Since the amount payable to the respondent was not quantified, the court found no basis to compel the applicant to deposit an arbitrary sum, even though the applicant expressed willingness to abide by directions on security.
Legal principles established
#- Once an applicant expresses that a respondent would be unable to pay back the decretal sum, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to show what resources he has.
- Reinstatement with back pay pending an appeal can render the appeal nugatory because the state of affairs becomes irreversible.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment rendered on 12th September 2024 granted for 120 days pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Liberty to the applicant to apply before the Court of Appeal if the stay lapses before the intended appeal is determined
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
Accordingly, I grant stay of execution of the judgment rendered on 12th September 2024 for 120 days pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal.
Should the stay lapse before the intended appeal is determined, the applicant will be free to apply before the Court of Appeal.
Substantial loss is anything that renders an appeal nugatory.
The respondent has not discharged his evidentiary burden of proving his capacity to repay the judgment debt should the appeal succeed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murimi v County Government of Kirinyaga & another; Public Service Commission (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Application E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 71 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/71/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.