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· [2025] KEELRC 2808 (KLR)

Maisha Steel (EA) Limited v Munyao (Miscellaneous Application E299 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2808 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
16 October 2025
CBC. N. Baari
1,620 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 Employment Court gave a company two extra days to appeal and froze the judgment payout, but only after it promised to deposit the full award.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant, Maisha Steel (E.A) Limited, moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi by a Notice of Motion dated 19th August 2025 seeking extension of time to file an appeal against the judgment of Hon. Noelle Kyanya (D.R) in Ruiru Magistrate Court MCELRC No. E275 of 2024 (Harrison Mutune Munyao v Maisha Steel (E.A) Limited) delivered on 18th July 2025, together with a stay of execution of the whole judgment pending the intended appeal, and a conditional deposit of half the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account. The Respondent opposed, arguing that the application was filed over one month after judgment, that no loss from payment of the decretal sum was demonstrated, and that a stay would deny him the fruits of his judgment. Relying on Order 50 Rule 6 and Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act, and the criteria in the Salat case (length of and reason for delay, arguability of the appeal, prejudice and public interest), the court found the two-day delay justified by the late supply of typed proceedings, which had been requested on 21st July 2025 and supplied only on 12th August 2025. On stay, applying Order 42 Rule 6 and Wilson v Church (No 2), the court held that refusing stay would render the extension of time futile. The court allowed the application: time was extended for 14 days, stay of execution of the whole judgment was granted pending the intended appeal, the Applicant was ordered to deposit the entire decretal sum (not half, as sought) in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days, and the court made no orders on costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time for filing an appeal under Section 79G and Order 50 Rule 6

Holding

The delay of two days was justified by the late supply of typed proceedings; the extension prayer was merited and allowed

Reasoning

The applicant requested typed proceedings on 21st July 2025 but received them only on 12th August 2025, leaving six days to compile the record. The 30-day period lapsed on 16th August 2025 and the application was lodged on 19th August 2025, two days out of time. The court found this short delay sufficiently explained and that no prejudice beyond delayed enjoyment of the judgment was shown by the respondent.

p. 3
02

Stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6

Holding

Stay was granted because declining it would render the extension of time and the filing of the appeal futile

Reasoning

Applying Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) and Wilson v Church (No 2), the court held that a stay should ordinarily be granted so that a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory. Having allowed extension of time, refusal of stay would make the extension an exercise in futility; the respondent demonstrated no prejudice other than delay in enjoying the fruits of judgment. Security was ordered in the form of deposit of the entire decretal sum.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The court's power to enlarge time is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, considering the length of and reason for the delay, whether the appeal is arguable, prejudice to the respondent and public interest
  • Stay of execution is an equitable discretionary remedy generally granted so that a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Extension of time to file an appeal against the Ruiru Magistrate Court decision in MCELRC No. E275 of 2024 delivered on 18th July 2025, with the appeal to be filed within 14 days of the order
  2. 2.Stay of execution of 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 in the names of the advocates for both parties within 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
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 50 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 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. E275 of 2024)
MCELRC No. E275 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Order 42 Rule 6, Order 50 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; 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 Munyao (Miscellaneous Application E299 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2808 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2808/eng@2025-10-16

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