University of Nairobi v Okura (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E137 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2464 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court paused enforcement of a Kshs 926,687 award against the University of Nairobi until its appeal is heard.
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 application for stay of execution pending appeal was merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant demonstrated substantial loss and filed the application without unreasonable delay
The application was filed within the statutory 30-day period and without undue delay; substantial loss was established because the respondent did not show ability to refund the decretal sum of Kshs 926,687.05 if the appeal succeeded
The judgment was delivered on 29th April 2025 and the memorandum of appeal and motion were filed on 9th May 2025, within the 30-day statutory timeline. On substantial loss, the court applied the Century Oil test: for money decrees, the financial position of both parties matters, and a real possibility that the respondent could not refund the decretal sum rendered the appeal at risk of being nugatory.
Whether a public university is exempt from depositing security under Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The applicant public university qualifies as 'Government' for purposes of Order 42 rule 8 and is exempt from security
The Rules do not define 'government'. The court relied on the constitutional definition of 'public office' and Sections 45 and 47 of the Universities Act, which provide that public universities are funded by Parliament and audited by the Auditor-General. It therefore found the university falls under government for purposes of the exemption, distinguishing Reuben Ondigu Orodo v University of Nairobi, which turned on the Government Proceedings Act.
Whether public interest favoured a stay
Public interest under Articles 201 and 232(1)(b) of the Constitution favoured staying payment of public funds pending appeal
Relying on Lemanken Aramat and Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Peter Mangiti, the court held that protecting public coffers pending appeal is in the public interest, particularly where the decree holder had not shown ability to refund the decretal sum and the appeal raised arguable points.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution requires substantial loss, no unreasonable delay and security, but no security is required from the Government or a public university whose funds are provided by Parliament
- A stay may be granted in the public interest where a money decree is payable from public funds and the decree holder has not demonstrated capacity to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary order of stay of execution issued against the judgment and decree of Hon Aziza Ajwang dated 29th April 2025 in MCELRC No. E420 of 2022, Linet Mirehane Okura v University of Nairobi, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 2.The appeal to be fast-tracked in the interest of justice and not to prejudice the decree holder
- 3.Costs of the application in the cause
- 4.The applicant to obtain typed proceedings of the lower court and file the record of appeal within 30 days
- 5.Mention on 16th October 2025 to confirm status and issue further directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Trial Court, Hon Aziza Ajwang)
- MCELRC No. E420 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Rule 73 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Deposit of security as a condition for stay
The applicant, being a public university funded by the exchequer, was held exempt from security under Order 42 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Costs
Costs of the application in the cause.
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 conclusion, the application is granted. A temporary order of stay of execution is issued against the Judgment and Decree by Hon Aziza Ajwang dated 29th April 2025 in MCELRC No. E420 of 2022, Linet Mirehane Okura v University of Nairobi, pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
Costs of the application in the cause.
The court is to fast-track the appeal in the interest of justice and not to prejudice the decree holder.
The court is persuaded to find that the applicant fits to be under government for the purposes of Order 46 (8) of the Civil Procedure Rules hence exempt from deposit of security of costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers inconsistently to the security exemption rule as 'Order 46 Rule (2)b', 'Order 46 (8)' and 'Order 42 Rule 8' within the same passages
The Muthui v Kasivu citation is printed with a corrupted character
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "University of Nairobi v Okura (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E137 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2464 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 9th May 2025 in the Appeal against MCELRC No. E420 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2464/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.