Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedELRC Appeal (Nairobi) – Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2025· [2025] KEELRC 2329 (KLR)

Sana Industries Limited v Aibu (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E103, E104, E107, E106, E133, E132 & E131 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2329 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
30 July 2025
JKJ. W. Keli
2,406 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed a company to pause execution of a judgment by offering vehicle logbooks instead of cash deposit as security.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Sana Industries Company Limited, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi by Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2025 under Order 40 Rule 6, Order 50 Rules 3 and 6 and Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of the Magistrates Court at Ruiru (Ruiru MCELRC No. E124 of 2024) delivered on 18th March 2025, in which the respondent was awarded Kshs. 418,080 plus half costs and interest, together with leave to offer the logbook of motor vehicle KBN xxxA as security. The respondent opposed, arguing the appeal lacked merit, that a logbook for a vehicle remaining in the applicant's use and prone to depreciation was inadequate security, and alternatively sought deposit of the full decretal sum and costs (Kshs. 463,079) in a joint interest-earning account. The court identified a single issue: whether the application for stay pending appeal was merited, to be tested against the three conditions in Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules as imported by Rule 73(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024. Applying Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal and Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University, Keli J found no unreasonable delay; substantial loss was demonstrated because the respondent's affidavit did not address his ability to refund the decretal sum; and the vehicle logbook, supported by a valuation of Kshs. 700,000 against a decretal sum of Kshs. 418,080, unencumbered and registered in the applicant's name, was good security. The application was allowed: stay of execution was granted pending appeal, logbooks of three vehicles were admitted as security across seven related appeals to be deposited within 15 days, costs of the application were awarded to the respondent in the cause, and the appeals were directed to be fast-tracked with a mention on 22nd September 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application for stay of execution pending appeal was filed without unreasonable delay

Holding

There was no unreasonable delay; the application was filed on 15th April 2025 against a judgment delivered on 18th March 2025

Reasoning

The court compared the filing date of the application (15th April 2025) with the date of delivery of the impugned judgment (18th March 2025) and concluded the interval disclosed no delay. This satisfied the first limb of Order 42 Rule 6(2)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

p. 4
02

Whether substantial loss had been demonstrated

Holding

Substantial loss was demonstrated because the respondent did not address his financial means or ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded

Reasoning

The court applied the qualitative test in Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University: in a money decree, substantial loss lies in the decree holder's inability to refund. The respondent's replying affidavit did not address his financial means and capability to refund, so refusal of stay risked rendering the appeal nugatory.

p. 5
03

Whether the offered security (motor vehicle logbook) was adequate

Holding

The security was sufficient; the logbook of an unencumbered vehicle registered in the applicant's name and supported by a valuation report was accepted

Reasoning

A valuation report valued the vehicle at Kshs. 700,000 against a decretal sum of Kshs. 418,080. Ownership was registered in the applicant's name, the vehicle was unencumbered with no previous owners. The court followed Ojwang v Kahiu & 2 others [2024] eKLR and its own prior decision in Sana Industries Ltd v Beth Waruga Macharia, rejecting the respondent's depreciation-and-control objections.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • In a money decree, substantial loss lies in the inability of the decree holder to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed
  • Stay ought to be granted so that an appeal, if successful, may not be rendered nugatory
  • A motor vehicle backed by a valuation report, unencumbered and registered in the applicant's name, constitutes good security for the due performance of a decree

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Temporary order of stay of execution of the Judgment and Decree of the Magistrates Court delivered on 18th March 2025 by Hon Diana Orago pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal
  2. 2.Original logbooks of Motor Vehicle Registration numbers KBN xxxA, KCG xxxN and KCB xxxG admitted as security in E103, E104, E107, E106, E133, E132 and E131, to be deposited in court within 15 days of the order, in default execution may proceed
  3. 3.Costs of the application to the Respondent in the cause
  4. 4.Appeal to be fast-tracked to protect the interest of the respondent
  5. 5.Appellant to file and serve written submissions in all the appeals within 21 days; respondent to file and serve submissions within 21 days of service or lapse of the 21 days
  6. 6.Mention on 22nd September 2025 to confirm compliance and for highlighting of submissions

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 6; Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2); Order 50 Rules 3 and 6; Order 46(2)(b) (as cited in the judgment)
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024Rule 21; Rule 73(2)

Cases cited (6)

  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1982] KLR 417
  • Wilson v Church (No 2)
    12 Ch D [1879] 454
  • Antoine Ndiaye v African Virtual University
    [2015] eKLR
  • Matata & another v Rono and another
    [2024] eKLR
  • Ojwang v Kahiu & 2 others
    [2024] eKLR
  • Sana Industries Ltd v Beth Waruga Macharia, Nairobi ELRC Appeal No. E105 of 2020
On appeal from
Magistrates Court at Ruiru (Ruiru MCELRC No. E124 of 2024)
Ruiru MCELRC No. E124 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 Rule 6, Order 50 Rules 3 and 6 and Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, read with Rule 73(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024 and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sana Industries Limited v Aibu (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E103, E104, E107, E106, E133, E132 & E131 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2329 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC Appeal (Nairobi) – Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2329/eng@2025-07-30

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