Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNakuru ELRC Appeal arising from Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E056 of 2023 (application dated 16th July 2024)· [2025] KEELRC 320 (KLR)

Bedi Investments Limited v Mataya (Appeal E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 320 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 February 2025
JRJames Rika
548 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court refused to pause a money judgment, holding that an overdrawn bank account alone does not prove losing money justifies stopping execution.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant, the unsuccessful party before the trial court in Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E056 of 2023, whose judgment was delivered on 6th March 2024, applied for stay of execution of the judgment/decree pending appeal. Its earlier stay application had been declined by the trial court on 10th July 2024 on the ground that it failed to establish that it would suffer any loss, substantial or otherwise, if the decretal sum was paid. The application was supported by affidavits of the Appellant's Human Resource Officer, Peris Waithera, exhibiting bank letters showing overdrawn accounts and asserting losses sustained during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Respondent opposed through a replying affidavit sworn by her Counsel, Nigel Ouma Mwallo, reiterating the trial court's finding that although other conditions for stay were satisfied, substantial loss had not been demonstrated. Parties agreed to have the application determined on the affidavits and submissions on record. James Rika, J, found that the Appellant had presented nothing establishing substantial loss: an overdrawn bank account letter is hardly evidence of substantial loss, no financial statements were exhibited, and the insolvency claim was alarmist and unsupported. Applying Century Oil Trading Company v. Kenya Shell Limited, the court reiterated that substantial loss is not the ordinary loss of paying a decree, and that inability of the Respondent to refund must be established, which the Appellant did not do. The application was declined, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether substantial loss was demonstrated

Holding

Not demonstrated; an overdrawn bank account is not evidence of substantial loss and insolvency assertions were alarmist and unsupported

Reasoning

The Appellant relied on bank letters showing overdrawn accounts and alleged Covid-19 losses. The court held that a letter showing an overdrawn account hardly evidences substantial loss, no financial statements (current or Covid-19 period) were exhibited, and the insolvency claim was alarmist and unsupported by evidence.

p. 2
02

Whether the Respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum was in issue

Holding

The Appellant did not establish that the Respondent would be unable to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded

Reasoning

Counsel and the court noted the test requires consideration of both parties' positions; inability to refund must be established. The Appellant submitted nothing to show the Respondent could not refund, so substantial loss could not be presumed from paying the decree.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Substantial loss is not the ordinary financial loss a judgment-debtor incurs in paying a decree; the inability of the decree-holder to refund the decretal amount must be established
  • In assessing substantial loss, the court must consider the position of both applicant and respondent

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application filed by the Appellant dated 16th July 2024 is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court (Nakuru C.M. E&LRC)
E056 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate/supervisory jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over the subordinate court (inherent application for stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bedi Investments Limited v Mataya (Appeal E023 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 320 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru ELRC Appeal arising from Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E056 of 2023 (application dated 16th July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/320/eng@2025-02-12

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