Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedNot stated in the judgment

Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Wells Fargo Security Limited (Cause E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3767 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
11 December 2025
MOMaureen Onyango
2,675 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court in Eldoret paused execution of a Kshs 746,168 judgment against an employer, but only if the employer deposits the full amount in court within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2025 under Rule 73(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and Orders 42 Rule 6 and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the employer (the Respondent in the main suit) sought stay of execution of a judgment delivered on 20th June 2025 in which the court found the grievant was unfairly terminated and awarded Kshs 746,168.70. The employer intended to appeal to the Court of Appeal and feared substantial loss because the grievant, who testified he was unemployed with no income, might be unable to refund the decretal sum. The claimant opposed through Peter Odima's replying affidavit, contending the application was incompetent, that no substantial loss would be suffered, and that the employer was bent on denying the grievant CBA union benefits. The parties filed written submissions citing extensive Court of Appeal and High Court authority on substantial loss, delay, security and sufficient cause. The court, Maureen Onyango J, framed a single issue: whether the respondent had justified the grant of stay of execution pending appeal. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2), the court held that the right of appeal under Article 50 is exercisable subject to furnishing security, found the grievant may be unable to refund the decretal sum, noted the application was filed within a month of judgment, and accepted the offer of security. The court granted stay of execution conditional upon the respondent depositing the entire decretal sum in court within 30 days, with costs of the application to abide the appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.whether the Respondent has justified the grant of orders of stay of execution pending appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the conditions for stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6(2) were satisfied

Holding

The court was satisfied that the Grievant may not be in a position to refund the decretal sum if paid, constituting substantial loss, and granted stay conditional on deposit of the entire decretal sum in court within 30 days.

Reasoning

The court considered the application, the replying affidavit and submissions. The Applicant demonstrated that the Grievant testified he is unemployed with no source of income, so recovery of the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded was doubtful. The application was filed within a month of judgment, and the Applicant offered security by depositing the decretal sum. All three conditions under Order 42 Rule 6(2) — substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security — were met, warranting a conditional stay.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Filing an appeal is a right exercisable subject to the appellant providing security for the due performance of the decree

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 20th June 2025 granted, conditional upon the Respondent depositing the entire decretal sum in court within 30 days
  2. 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal

The bench

#

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

MO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 73(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

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.

For the forgoing reasons I will grant stay of execution conditional upon the Respondent depositing the entire decretal sum in court within 30 days.
p. 6Final orders — conditional stay of execution
The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
p. 6Costs order
Filing an appeal is a right of every party to a suit in the realization of the wider right to fair hearing enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
p. 5Right of appeal and security
The only issue for determination is whether the Respondent has justified the grant of orders of stay of execution pending appeal.
p. 5Issue for determination

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment inconsistently refers to the party roles: the employer moving for stay is called both 'the Respondent' (intended appellant in the main suit) and 'the Applicant' in the same application

minor

The claimant/respondent's replying affidavit deponent (Peter Odima, Claimant's branch secretary) is referred to as 'the Respondent' in submissions, though the claimant won the judgment under stay challenge

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya National Private Security Workers Union v Wells Fargo Security Limited (Cause E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 3767 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3767/eng@2025-12-11

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