Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateAllowedEmployment Cause Number E232 of 2024· [2026] KEMC 107 (KLR)

Shikopo v Menengai Oil Refineries Ltd (Cause E232 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 107 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court (Nakuru Cmelrc, Magistrates' Court)
26 May 2026
ANAloyce Peter Ndege
1,703 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court allowed an employer to pause enforcing a judgment until its appeal is heard, provided it deposits the full award in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent/Applicant (the employer) moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 03/03/2026 seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 24/02/2026, in which the Claimant was awarded Ksh. 1,419,347.69 plus costs and interest, pending an appeal lodged before the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru. The Applicant also sought review of the judgment to correct errors apparent on the record: the cause number was recorded as E233 of 2024 instead of E232 of 2024, and the Claimant's name was recorded as Bramwell Matakala Wafula instead of Kennedy Wafula Shikipo. The Claimant/Respondent did not oppose the review but opposed stay, contending inter alia that the trial court was functus officio under section 21(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, which requires such applications to be filed in the appeal file. The court granted the unopposed review, holding that the errors arose from confusion with a sister file. On jurisdiction, it held that rule 21(1) does not specify a particular court and only requires disclosure of similar applications elsewhere, so it had jurisdiction to hear the stay application. Applying Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the principles in Carter and Sons Ltd, Butt v Rental Restriction Tribunal and Kenya Shell Ltd v Kibiru, the court found no unreasonable delay (application filed seven days after judgment), uncontroverted apprehension of substantial loss, and an offer of security. The application was allowed: the judgment was reviewed to correct the cause number and Claimant's name; stay of execution was granted pending appeal on condition that the Applicant deposit the decretal sum in an interest-earning joint account of counsel within 30 days, failing which the stay lapses; costs abide the appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the trial court to hear an application for stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The court has jurisdiction because rule 21(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 does not specify a particular court; it only requires an applicant to declare a similar application filed in any other court.

Reasoning

Rule 21(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 provides that an application for stay of execution pending appeal shall be filed in the appeal file. However, rule 21(1) merely requires an applicant to declare in the supporting affidavit whether a similar application has been filed in any other court. The court construed this to mean such an application may be lodged in any court so long as it is declared, thereby conferring jurisdiction on itself notwithstanding the Claimant's functus officio objection under section 21(2).

p. 3
02

Conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal

Holding

The Applicant satisfied the conditions under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules: the application was made without unreasonable delay (filed seven days after judgment), substantial loss was not controverted, and security was offered.

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the principles in Carter and Sons Ltd v Deposit Protection Fund Board, Butt v Rental Restriction Tribunal and Kenya Shell Ltd v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru, that stay is discretionary, must not render an appeal nugatory, and that substantial loss is the cornerstone. Judgment was delivered on 24/02/2026 and the application filed on 03/03/2026, showing no unreasonable delay; the averment of difficulty in recovering the decretal sum was not controverted and security by deposit was offered.

03

Review of judgment to correct errors apparent on the face of the record

Holding

The review was unopposed and met the threshold under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, being an error apparent on the face of the record (wrong cause number and wrong Claimant's name, confused with a sister file).

Reasoning

The judgment had recorded the cause number as E233 of 2024 instead of E232 of 2024 and the Claimant's name as Bramwell Matakala Wafula instead of Kennedy Wafula Shikipo, apparently confused with a sister file, Nakuru Cmelrc No. 233 of 2024, Bramwel Matakala Wafula vrs Menengai Refineries Limited. The Claimant did not oppose the review. The court agreed that the application met the threshold under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, particularly the ground of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for stay of execution pending appeal may be filed in any court provided that any similar application filed in another court is declared in the supporting affidavit, under rule 21(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court reviewed its judgment to correct the cause number to read E232 of 2024 instead of 233 of 2024
  2. 2.The court reviewed its judgment to correct the name of the Claimant to read Kennedy Likovelo Shikopo instead of Bramwell Matakala Eafula
  3. 3.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 24/02/2026 together with any consequential decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
  4. 4.The Applicant to deposit security in the form of the decretal sum in an interest-earning joint account in the names of counsel for the parties within 30 days
  5. 5.In default of compliance with the security order, the stay orders to automatically lapse
  6. 6.Costs of the application to abide with the outcome of the appeal
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 21(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shikopo v Menengai Oil Refineries Ltd (Cause E232 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Employment Cause Number E232 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/107/eng@2026-05-26

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