Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the extract· [2025] KEELRC 285 (KLR)

Sawe v Ekaterra Tea Kenya PLC (Cause E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 285 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
7 February 2025
770 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court froze an Sh8 million award because both the employer and employee are appealing the judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho (Rika J) on the Respondent's application dated 27th August 2024 seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 18th July 2024, in which the Court found the Claimant's employment unfairly and unlawfully terminated and awarded him 6 months' salary as compensation (Kshs. 6,003,986.04) and 2 months' salary in lieu of notice (Kshs. 2,001,328.72), totalling Kshs. 8,005,314.72. Both parties filed Notices of Appeal, the Respondent supported its application by affidavits of its in-house General-Counsel Jonathan Waguru and external counsel Esther Kinyenje-Opiyo, arguing an arguable appeal, that execution would render the appeal nugatory given the Claimant's unknown assets or whereabouts, and offering a bank guarantee as security. The Claimant opposed, contending he should not be deprived of the fruits of his judgment and that irreparable loss was not established. The application was determined on affidavits and submissions. The Court held that because both parties challenge the core findings and remedies of the judgment, it was unnecessary to enquire into the other stay principles; it was sufficient that both were dissatisfied and moving to the Court of Appeal. Execution of the judgment was stayed pending the Intended Appeal and Cross-Appeal, with no order on costs. Dated, signed and released electronically at Kericho on 7th February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted

Holding

Stay granted because both parties challenge the core findings and remedies of the judgment and have filed Notices of Appeal and Cross-Appeal

Reasoning

Both parties filed Notices of Appeal disclosing an Intended Appeal and Intended Cross-Appeal. The Claimant's Cross-Appeal challenges the finding of valid reason for dismissal, redundancy, and the quantum of notice pay and compensation, while the Respondent's Draft Memorandum of Appeal challenges procedural and substantive justice findings. The Court held that the other stay principles need not be examined; it sufficed that both parties challenge fundamental aspects of the judgment and have sought trial proceedings for their appeals. The judgment must remain frozen.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where both parties are dissatisfied with a judgment and have both expressed intent to challenge it on appeal, execution of that judgment should be stayed so each party can exercise their right of appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Execution of Judgment/Decree of the Court made on 18th July 2024 stayed pending filing, hearing and determination of the Intended Appeal and Cross-Appeal
  2. 2.No order on the costs
On appeal from
Not stated (interlocutory application in the same suit)
Jurisdiction invoked
Discretionary jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to stay execution of its own judgment pending appeal (not expressly cited in the extract)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sawe v Ekaterra Tea Kenya PLC (Cause E012 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 285 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/285/eng@2025-02-07

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.