Were v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (Formerly Pan Africa Life Assurance Limited) & 2 others (Cause 613 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 743 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court allowed an employer's appeal stay without extra security because the Kshs. 5 million already deposited was enough to protect both sides.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicants should be granted stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 28.06.2024 pending their intended appeal, and on what further security (if any)
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution pending appeal should issue on the strength of the partial security already deposited
The Court allowed stay of execution on the Kshs. 5,000,000.00 already deposited, holding that, given the decretal amount and the deposit, the stay met the justice of both parties; no further security was required.
The applicants had deposited Kshs. 5,000,000.00 as partial security under a temporary stay order, and had failed to agree with the claimant on further security. The claimant argued the applicants' asserted risk of substantial loss was unfounded because her mortgaged property had been sold at auction and she still faced arrears of Kshs. 22,709,267.10. Weighing the decretal amount against the deposit, the Court found the deposit sufficient to balance the applicants' liquidity needs and the claimant's interests, and granted stay pending appeal with each party bearing its own costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- A stay of execution pending appeal may be granted on security already partially deposited where it meets the justice of both parties, without a further security commitment.
Court orders
#- 1.In view of the Kshs. 5,000,000.00 already deposited by the applicants as partial security, there be stay of execution of the decree flowing from the judgment delivered on 28.06.2024, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal preferred against the Judgment
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016, together with Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In view of the Kshs. 5, 000, 000.00 already deposited by the applicants as partial security, there be stay of execution of the decree fiowing from the judgment delivered herein on 28.06.2024 and pending the hearing and determination of the appeal preferred against the Judgment.
Each party to bear own costs of the application.
the Court returns that in view of the decretal amount and the amount already deposited, a stay of execution pending appeal should be allowed as meeting of justice for both parties
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical error in dates in the replying affidavit account: default period stated as 'from July 2024 to August 2014', which is inconsistent with the surrounding chronology.
Inconsistent rendering of the decretal amount in the decree figure ('Kshs. 12.02.500.00') versus the security figure format elsewhere ('Kshs. 5, 000, 000.00'), obscuring the exact decretal sum.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Were v Sanlam Life Insurance Limited (Formerly Pan Africa Life Assurance Limited) & 2 others (Cause 613 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 743 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/743/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.