Patriotic Group of Companies Ltd v Mukuloh (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1635 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court struck out Daima Life Assurance's late appeal because it gave no explanation for a six-month delay in filing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 were satisfied
Substantial loss was shown but the application was made after inordinate, unexplained delay and without disclosure of the undertaking to pay the decretal sum; stay was refused.
Order 42 Rule 6 requires substantial loss, application without unreasonable delay, and security. While a proclamation against the appellant's property showed substantial loss, the delay from the ruling of 12th July 2024 to the memorandum of appeal dated 23rd January 2025 exceeded six months with no explanation. The appellant also failed to disclose that it had undertaken to pay the decretal sum by postdated cheques, compromising its candour. Both mandatory conditions failed, so stay could not issue.
Whether the appellant should be granted leave to file the appeal out of time
Leave was refused because the appellant gave no good and sufficient cause for the delay.
Under Rule 12 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, an appeal must be filed within thirty days unless the applicant shows good and sufficient cause. Relying on Diplack Kenya Ltd v William Muthama Kitonyi, Salat v IEBC and Paul Musili Wambua v AG, the court held that the length of and reason for delay, chances of success and prejudice are key, and that the appellant was silent on the reason for the delay, a mandatory requirement.
Whether the appeal filed out of time could stand
The appeal could not stand and was struck out.
Having declined extension of time, the appeal filed without leave was incompetent. The court struck it out and awarded costs to the respondent. The respondent's review application became superfluous and was not considered.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court
- An applicant seeking enlargement of time or stay must explain the delay; unexplained inordinate delay disentitles the applicant
- Parties to an appeal need not be represented by the same counsel as in the lower court; separate addresses for service are required
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's application dated 27th January, 2025 (referred to in the disposition as 23rd January, 2025) for extension of time and stay of execution is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- 2.The appeal filed out of time is struck out, with costs to the Respondent
- 3.The respondent's application dated 3rd February, 2025 for review was declared superfluous and not considered
- On appeal from
- Eldoret CMELRC (magistrate's court)
- Eldoret CMELRC CAUSE NO. E184 OF 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Act, Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act; Rule 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Patriotic Group of Companies Ltd v Mukuloh (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1635 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Appeal from Eldoret CMELRC CAUSE NO. E184 OF 2022 (ruling appealed delivered 12th July 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1635/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.