Scott Bowerbank Day v Victory Farms Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E181 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1842 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to pause a USD 238,352 judgment because the losing company never offered security to guarantee payment if its appeal failed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Substantial loss
The applicant satisfied the substantial-loss condition because the decree holder had not demonstrated ability to refund the money decree if the appeal succeeds.
The decree was a money decree of USD 238,352. Relying on Century Oil Trading and National Industrial Credit Bank v Wasike, the court held that the financial position of both parties is relevant, and that once an applicant reasonably fears non-refundability, the burden shifts to the decree holder to show his resources. The claimant, a resident of Zambia and US citizen with no known Kenyan assets, had not shown ability to repay, so substantial loss was demonstrated.
Security for due performance of the decree
The application failed because the applicant offered no security, a compulsory condition for stay.
Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) is mandatory. The applicant relied on status quo instead of offering security, despite having had ample opportunity since a temporary stay issued after the 31 January 2025 judgment. The court adopted the reasoning in Michael Ntouthi Mitheu v Kivondo Musau on why security is required, and the authorities relied on by the respondent holding the security condition to be mandatory. Absent security, the application was a decoy to delay the claimant's enjoyment of the judgment.
Arguability of the intended appeal
The trial court could not consider arguability; that is the preserve of the Court of Appeal.
Although the applicant advanced extensive draft grounds of appeal attacking the findings on the management incentive, redundancy, relocation allowance, severance pay and compensation for unfair termination, the court held that as the trial court it could only consider the factors in Order 42 Rule 6(2); questions of arguability belong to the appellate court on similar applications.
Legal principles established
#- The conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules – substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and security for due performance of the decree – are mandatory.
- A trial court entertaining a stay application cannot determine the arguability of the intended appeal; that question is for the Court of Appeal.
- Where an applicant for stay of a money decree expresses a reasonable fear that the decree holder cannot refund, the evidential burden shifts to the decree holder to show his resources.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 3rd March 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
- 3.It is so Ordered
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 73(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 read with Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Scott Bowerbank Day v Victory Farms Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E181 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 1842 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC at Machakos – Notice of Motion dated 3rd March 2025 (following judgment dated 31st January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1842/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.