Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (arising from Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E057 of 2023)· [2025] KEELRC 341 (KLR)

Bedi Investments Limited v Moraisi (Appeal E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 341 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
12 February 2025
JRJames Rika
549 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 court refused to pause a judgment's enforcement because the losing party offered no real proof it would suffer serious, unrecoverable loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Appellant filed an application dated 16th July 2024 seeking stay of execution of the judgment/decree in Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E057 of 2023 pending its intended appeal. The trial court's judgment was delivered on 6th March 2024, and the trial court had itself declined stay in a ruling dated 10th July 2024, holding that while other conditions were satisfied, the Appellant had not demonstrated that execution would result in substantial loss. The application was supported by affidavits of the Appellant's Human Resource Officer, Peris Waithera, and opposed by a replying affidavit sworn by the Respondent's counsel, Nigel Ouma Mwallo. The Appellant relied on a letter from its bank, BOI, showing the account was overdrawn, and asserted financial losses during the Covid-19 pandemic amounting to threatened insolvency. The parties agreed the application be determined on affidavits and submissions. The Court found no evidence of substantial loss: the overdrawn-account letter was 'hardly evidence' of such 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 financial loss of paying a decretal sum, and that the Respondent's inability to refund must be established, which the Appellant did not do. The application was declined with no order on costs. Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Nakuru on 12th February 2025 by James Rika, Judge.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Appellant demonstrated substantial loss to justify stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The application fails; the Appellant did not establish substantial loss

Reasoning

The Court found that an overdrawn bank account letter is hardly evidence of substantial loss, and no financial statements (current or from the Covid-19 period) were exhibited to support the claim of insolvency. The assertion of insolvency was characterised as alarmist and unsupported by evidence. The Appellant also failed to show that the Respondent would be unable to refund the decretal amount if the intended appeal succeeded.

p. 2
02

Whether the trial court's earlier decline of stay precluded a fresh application

Holding

Not addressed as a bar; the application was considered on its merits through affidavits and submissions

Reasoning

The judgment records that the trial court had declined stay on 10th July 2024 on the ground that the Appellant failed to establish loss, 'hence this application.' The ELRC did not treat the prior ruling as a bar but assessed the new application on the evidence, arriving at the same substantive conclusion on substantial loss.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution is not the normal financial loss a judgment-debtor incurs in paying the decretal sum; the inability of the decree-holder to refund must be established
  • In considering whether substantial loss will be sustained, the Court must look at the position of both the Appellant and the 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
Nakuru Chief Magistrate's Court (E&LRC)
E057 of 2023
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate/stay jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over an appeal from the magistrate's court (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 Moraisi (Appeal E022 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 341 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (arising from Nakuru C.M. E&LRC Cause Number E057 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/341/eng@2025-02-12

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