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 C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E058 of 2023 (referenced)· [2025] KEELRC 340 (KLR)

Bedi Investments Limited v Chore (Appeal E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 340 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 February 2025
JRJames Rika
528 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 execution of a judgment because the appellant only showed ordinary money trouble, not that the winner couldn't repay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (James Rika, Judge) delivered electronically on 12th February 2025, on the Appellant's application dated 16th July 2024 seeking stay of execution of the judgment/decree of the trial Court in Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E058 of 2023, delivered on 6th March 2024, pending appeal. The Appellant had earlier sought a similar order before the trial Court, which was declined in a ruling dated 10th July 2024 on the ground that the Appellant 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, attaching a letter from its bank, BOI, showing the account was overdrawn, and citing financial losses sustained during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Respondent replied through an affidavit sworn by his Counsel, Nigel Ouma Mwallo, restating the trial Court's holding. The parties agreed to have the application determined on affidavits and submissions. The Court, following Century Oil Trading Company v Kenya Shell Limited, held that substantial loss is not the normal financial loss incurred in meeting a decretal sum, and that the applicant must establish the Respondent's inability to refund. The Appellant exhibited no financial statements, and the overdrawn-account letter was held not to be evidence of substantial loss. The application was declined, with no order on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether substantial loss was established to warrant stay of execution

Holding

Stay declined; the Appellant did not demonstrate substantial loss

Reasoning

The court held that an overdrawn bank account letter is hardly evidence of substantial loss, and no financial statements from the current or Covid-19 period were exhibited. Applying Century Oil Trading Company v Kenya Shell, the court considered both parties' positions and found nothing to show the Respondent could not refund the decretal amount if the appeal succeeded. Substantial loss is distinct from the normal financial loss of paying a decree.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Substantial loss is not the ordinary 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. 1.The application filed by the Appellant dated 16th July 2024 is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs
On appeal from
Nakuru Chief Magistrate's Employment and Labour Relations Court
Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E058 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate/inherent jurisdiction of the ELRC over appeals from subordinate courts (stay of execution pending appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Bedi Investments Limited v Chore (Appeal E021 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 340 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E058 of 2023 (referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/340/eng@2025-02-12

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