Munayo & 15 others v Cyka Manpower Services Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E364 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 788 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court stopped enforcement of a KShs 3.4 million employment award, but only because the company agreed to pay the full amount into Court within 30 days.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Authority of the deponent
The objection to the Supporting Affidavit failed; the deponent swore she was the Legal and Compliance Officer and no evidence of want of authority was adduced
The deponent stated under oath that she was an Advocate and the Legal and Compliance Officer of the Applicant. The Claimants produced no evidence that she was unauthorised. Courts caution against elevating such objections into procedural technicalities absent proof of want of authority. The affidavit therefore stood as competent.
Unreasonable delay
A period of approximately forty-one days between expiry of the initial stay and filing of the application was not so prolonged or prejudicial as to defeat the application
Judgment was delivered on 15th April 2026 with a 30-day stay expiring 15th May 2026; the application was dated 25th June 2026. Although the Applicant could have moved more promptly, the taxation ruling delivered the same day brought execution closer, and delay must be assessed contextually. The limb was substantially satisfied.
Substantial loss and ability to refund
Substantial loss was demonstrated because the Claimants' means were undisclosed and recovery from 16 individual decree-holders could prove difficult
Applying National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd v Aquinas Francis Wasike, once the Applicant expressed reasonable apprehension about recovery, the evidential burden shifted to the Claimants. The Replying Affidavit did not disclose their financial means or assets. The total of KShs. 3,402,950 spread across 16 decree-holders posed a practical recovery risk amounting to substantial loss.
Security for due performance
The Court retained discretion over the amount and form of security and ordered deposit of the full decretal sum plus taxed costs (KShs. 3,402,950) in Court within 30 days
Order 42 Rule 6(2)(b) leaves security to the Court's discretion. The Applicant's offer of KShs. 1,000,000 was inadequate; the assertions of other decrees were in submissions, unsupported by annexures. A deposit of the full amount protects both sides: the Applicant against recovery difficulty and the Claimants against an unenforceable decree.
Legal principles established
#- An affidavit sworn on behalf of a corporation is not struck out merely because no board resolution is annexed, where the deponent identifies herself as an officer and no evidence of want of authority is produced
- Once a reasonable apprehension as to inability to refund a decretal sum is expressed, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent whose resources are peculiarly within his or her knowledge
- Execution of a money decree does not, without more, amount to substantial loss; the applicant must show a real risk of non-recovery if the appeal succeeds
- Submissions are not a substitute for evidence
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 15th April 2026 and all consequential decrees and orders pending the hearing and determination of Mombasa ELRC Civil Appeal No. E085 of 2026, Cyka Manpower Services Limited v Simon Munyao & 15 Others
- 2.Stay conditional upon the Respondent/Applicant depositing the entire decretal sum together with taxed costs, being KShs. 3,402,950, in Court within thirty (30) days from the date of the Ruling
- 3.In default of compliance, the order of stay shall automatically lapse and the Claimants shall be at liberty to execute
- 4.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 3A and 34 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Munayo & 15 others v Cyka Manpower Services Ltd (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E364 of 2021) [2026] KEMC 788 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the excerpt (Ruling on Notice of Motion dated 25th June 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/788/eng@2026-08-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.