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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment (the application dated 19th August 2025 relates to Ruiru Magistrate Court MCELRC No. E 276 of 2024)· [2025] KEELRC 2804 (KLR)

Maisha Steel (EA) Limited v Mussah (Miscellaneous Application E298 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2804 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Employment and Labour Relations appeal from subordinate court)
16 October 2025
CBC. N. Baari
1,622 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court gave Maisha Steel two extra days to appeal and stopped the judgment from being enforced, but only after the company deposited the full money owed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Maisha Steel (E.A) Limited, moved the High Court by notice of motion dated 19th August 2025 under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, Order 42 Rule 6, Order 50 Rule 6, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It sought extension of time to file an appeal against the judgment of the Ruiru Magistrate Court (MCELRC No. E 276 of 2024, Abdulkarim Mussah v Maisha Steel (E.A) Limited) delivered on 18th July 2025, and a stay of execution of that judgment pending the intended appeal. The Applicant explained that it requested typed proceedings on 21st July 2025 but received them only on 12th August 2025, leaving six days to file its memorandum and record of appeal; it was out of time by only two days, having lodged the application on 19th August 2025. The Respondent opposed, arguing the application was filed over a month after judgment and that a stay would deny him the fruits of his judgment. The court, citing Margaret Njoki Kamau v Reuben Ndivo Mwangi and the Salat factors (length of delay, reasons, arguability, prejudice, public interest), found the two-day delay justified by the late supply of proceedings and no prejudice to the Respondent beyond delayed enjoyment of the decree. Applying Order 42 Rule 6 and Wilson v Church (No 2), it held that refusing a stay would render the extension academic. The application was allowed: time extended for 14 days, stay of execution of the whole judgment granted pending appeal, conditioned on the Applicant depositing the entire decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days. No orders were made on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time to file an appeal out of time

Holding

Extension granted; a two-day delay explained by late supply of typed proceedings was justifiable

Reasoning

The court applied Order 50 Rule 6 and Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicant promptly requested typed proceedings on 21st July 2025 which were only supplied on 12th August 2025, leaving six days. The application was lodged two days after the 30-day period lapsed. The delay was minimal, explained, and the Respondent showed no prejudice beyond delayed enjoyment of the judgment.

p. 3
02

Stay of execution pending intended appeal

Holding

Stay granted subject to deposit of the entire decretal sum as security

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6 requires substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. Having allowed extension of time, refusing stay would render the extension and appeal academic. Applying Wilson v Church (No 2), the court held a stay should issue so the appeal, if successful, is not nugatory, conditioned on deposit of the whole decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The court's power to enlarge time is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously
  • Factors in exercising discretion to extend time are length of delay, reasons for delay, arguability of the appeal, prejudice to respondent and public interest
  • A stay of execution should generally be granted so that a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time for filing an appeal against the decision of the Ruiru Magistrate Court MCELRC No. E 276 of 2024 delivered on 18th July 2025, such appeal to be filed within 14 days of the order
  2. 2.Stay of execution against the whole Judgment delivered on 18th July 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the Intended Appeal
  3. 3.The Applicant to deposit the entire decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account held in the names of the advocates of the Applicant and the Respondent within thirty (30) days of the order
  4. 4.No orders on costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 50 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 79G

Cases cited (3)

  • Margaret Njoki Kamau v Reuben Ndivo Mwangi
    (2021) eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v. Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 7 Others
  • Wilson v Church (No 2)
    12 Ch D (1879) 454
On appeal from
Ruiru Magistrate Court
MCELRC No. E 276 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Order 42 Rule 6, Order 50 Rule 6, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A; Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maisha Steel (EA) Limited v Mussah (Miscellaneous Application E298 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2804 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (the application dated 19th August 2025 relates to Ruiru Magistrate Court MCELRC No. E 276 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2804/eng@2025-10-16

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