AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in excerpt (arising from Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E054 of 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 322 (KLR)
Bedi Investments Limited v Ndunga (Appeal E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 322 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#The Appellant filed an application dated 16th July 2024 seeking a stay of execution of the judgment and decree issued on 6th March 2024 in Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E054 of 2023, pending appeal. The application was supported by affidavits of the Appellant's Human Resource Officer, Peris Waithera. The Appellant had earlier sought stay before the trial court, which declined it in a ruling dated 10th July 2024 on the ground that substantial loss had not been established. Before this Court, the Appellant relied on a letter from its bank, BOI, showing an overdrawn account and asserted financial losses sustained during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Respondent, through a replying affidavit sworn by his Counsel, Nigel Ouma Mwallo, restated the trial court's holding that although other conditions for stay were satisfied, substantial loss had not been demonstrated. The parties agreed that the application be determined on the affidavits and submissions on record. The Court found that the Appellant had not presented anything to establish substantial loss if execution proceeds; a bank letter showing an overdrawn account was hardly evidence of such loss, and no financial statements, current or from the Covid-19 period, were exhibited. Applying Century Oil Trading Company v. Kenya Shell Limited, the Court held that substantial loss is not the ordinary financial loss a judgment-debtor incurs in paying a decree, and the Respondent's inability to refund must be demonstrated. The application was declined with no order as to costs.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the Appellant demonstrated substantial loss to warrant stay of execution pending appeal
Holding
The application was declined because the Appellant did not establish substantial loss
Reasoning
The court found that a bank letter showing an overdrawn account is hardly evidence of substantial loss, and no financial statements from the current period or the Covid-19 period were exhibited. Relying on Century Oil Trading Company v. Kenya Shell Limited, the court held that the court must look at the position of both parties, and the Appellant showed nothing to establish that the Respondent would be unable to refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded. Substantial loss is not merely the financial loss of paying a decree.
p. 2
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is not the normal financial loss a judgment-debtor incurs in paying the decretal sum; the applicant must establish the Respondent's inability to refund if the appeal succeeds
Court orders
#- 1.The application filed by the Appellant dated July 16, 2024 is declined
- 2.No order on the costs
- On appeal from
- Nakuru Chief Magistrate's Court (Employment and Labour Relations)
- Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E054 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Employment and Labour Relations Cause (stay of execution pending appeal)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bedi Investments Limited v Ndunga (Appeal E020 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 322 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in excerpt (arising from Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E054 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/322/eng@2025-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.