Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 25th March 2025 (Appeal against dismissal in Chief Magistrate's Court at Meru Employment and Labour Relations Court Case No. E005 of 2024)

Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited v M’Mbui (Appeal E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2382 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
14 August 2025
1,041 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court paused a Meru employment case because an appeal challenging it looked arguable and could be wasted if the trial continued.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri (Onesmus N Makau, J) ruled on the appellant's Notice of Motion dated 25th March 2025 seeking a stay of proceedings before the Chief Magistrates Court at Meru in Employment and Labour Relations Court Case No. E005 of 2024 (Stanley Mbaabu M'mbui v Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited) pending the hearing and determination of an appeal. The appellant had sought striking out of the respondent's suit in the lower court on grounds of being filed out of time, invoking orders reserved for the High Court, contravention of section 51(1) and (2) of the Work Injury Benefit Act, and res judicata; the trial court dismissed that motion. The respondent opposed the stay application, contending it was a delaying tactic and that leave to file out of time had been granted in Misc. Application No. E007 of 2024. The court framed a single issue: whether the appellant met the threshold for a stay of proceedings pending appeal. Applying the six principles in William Odhiambo Ramogi v Attorney General, the judge found an appeal challenging the whole lower court proceedings was already on record and not frivolous, citing Divecon v Samani on the six-year limitation bar for contract actions. The court held the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the trial proceeded to conclusion, noted the application was filed within one month, and granted the stay of proceedings as prayed, with costs in the appeal. The ruling was delivered via Teams with the parties' consent, waiving compliance with Rule 28(3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant has met the threshold for granting stay of proceedings pending appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Threshold for stay of proceedings pending appeal

Holding

The appellant satisfied the threshold: an appeal was on record, not frivolous; the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the trial proceeded to conclusion; and the application was filed within one month of the impugned decision.

Reasoning

The court adopted the six principles in William Odhiambo Ramogi v Attorney General, noting the discretion must be grounded on genuine reasons. It found an appeal challenging the whole lower court proceedings was already on record and not frivolous, citing Divecon v Samani on the six-year contractual limitation bar. It concluded the appeal would be nugatory if trial continued, that the application was made within one month, and that the circumstances warranted stay.

p. 3
02

Whether the lower court suit is barred by limitation

Holding

By way of support for arguability, the court noted the Divecon v Samani exposition of section 4(1) on contract actions brought after six years.

Reasoning

The appeal challenged dismissal of a motion to strike out the respondent's suit as filed out of time and res judicata. To demonstrate the appeal was not frivolous, the court relied on Divecon v Samani's reading of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, that no action founded on contract may be brought six years after the cause of action arose nor any application to extend time.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of proceedings pending appeal requires, among other factors, an appeal already filed, that it be arguable or raise substantial questions, that it would be rendered nugatory absent stay, expeditious filing, and exceptional circumstances.
  • Section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act bars contract actions brought six years after the cause of action arose, including applications to extend time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of further proceedings before the Chief Magistrates Court at Meru in Employment and Labour Relations Court Case No. E005 of 2024 (Stanley Mbaabu M’mbui vs Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited) pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Chief Magistrates Court at Meru
Employment and Labour Relations Court case No. E005 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate and supervisory jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over appeals from the subordinate courts (ELRC Procedure Rules; Rule 28(3) referenced for delivery of ruling)

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.

Finally, I find that the circumstances of this case demand that I grant the order of stay of proceedings as prayed in the notice of motion dated 25th March 2025. Costs shall be in the appeal.
p. 3final orders - stay granted
The court has discretion to grant or not to grant stay of proceedings. The discretion must be grounded upon genuine reasons.
p. 2judicial discretion on stay
The appeal herein will be rendered nugatory if the trial in the lower court will be allowed to proceed with trial to conclusion. The application was made within one month after the impugned decision was passed.
p. 3nugatory test and expeditious filing

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the ELRC appeal case number of the present matter, identifying it only through the motion and the lower court case.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Flamingo Horticulture Kenya Limited v M’Mbui (Appeal E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2382 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 25th March 2025 (Appeal against dismissal in Chief Magistrate's Court at Meru Employment and Labour Relations Court Case No. E005 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2382/eng@2025-08-14

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