Speaker, County Assembly of Laikipia & another v Team Laikipia Community Based Organization & another; Hinga (Interested Party) (Civil Application E024 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2135 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to pause an employment ruling against the Laikipia County Assembly, holding that money can compensate any loss and new evidence must be produced with diligence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicants demonstrated an arguable appeal
- 2.Whether the intended appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution of the impugned judgment is not stayed
- 3.Whether there is additional new evidence
- 4.Whether that evidence could have been obtained by reasonable diligence before and during the hearing
- 5.Whether there is a probability the additional evidence would have an important influence on the result of the case
- 6.Whether there is sufficient reason to admit the additional evidence
Key legal issues
#Test for stay of execution pending appeal under rule 5(2)(b)
The applicants must establish both an arguable appeal and that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay. The arguable-appeal limb was satisfied (jurisdiction, non-joinder and orders-not-prayed-for grounds were not frivolous), but the nugatory limb failed because the claimed loss is compensable in damages.
The court reiterated the twin principles long settled in decisions such as David Morton Silversein vs. Atsango Chesoni and Yellow Horse Inns Ltd. It held that parties on a rule 5(2)(b) application are not to ventilate the merits. Although arguability was made out on several grounds, the applicants showed no prejudice beyond pecuniary loss to the interested party, which damages can compensate, so the second limb failed and stay was refused.
Whether leave to adduce additional evidence should be granted
Leave was refused. The additional evidence was always in the applicants' possession and could have been produced with reasonable diligence; the Supreme Court's Mahamud vs. Mohamad guidelines and the 'sufficient reason' standard were not met.
The court applied the eleven-principle framework in Mahamud vs. Mohamad (Supreme Court) and the guidelines in Attorney General vs. Torino Enterprises requiring that the evidence not have been obtainable by reasonable diligence, that it would probably have influenced the result, and that it be credible. The documents were always available; blaming former advocates was unavailing, especially where the two applicants had separate counsel and either could have availed the documents.
Scope of a rule 5(2)(b) application - merits not ventilated
Issues going to the merits of the intended appeal (jurisdiction of the ELRC, alleged unconstitutionality of creating the office, orders not prayed for) are not determined on a stay application.
The court expressly declined to engage with the applicants' submissions on jurisdiction, natural justice and the legality of creating the Office of the Deputy Clerk - Administrative Services, holding that parties at this interlocutory stage are not meant to ventilate the merits; those grounds mattered only to establish arguability, which they did.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules need only satisfy two principles: an arguable appeal and that the appeal will be rendered nugatory absent stay; one arguable ground suffices.
- Even one arguable ground is sufficient to satisfy the first limb of the rule 5(2)(b) test.
- Pecuniary loss capable of quantification as damages does not satisfy the nugatory-appeal limb of a stay application.
- Additional evidence on appeal will only be admitted where it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before and during the hearing, would probably have an important influence on the result, and is credible; it cannot be used to patch up weaknesses in an unsuccessful party's case.
Court orders
#- 1.The entire notice of motion dated 5th March 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (ELRC)
- Petition filed 28th December 2023 (number not stated in the judgment)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 5(2)(b), 31, 43, 44, 45 and 49(1) & (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (interlocutory application; no constitutional or statutory appellate-jurisdiction provision stated)
Relief refused
#Stay of implementation of the ELRC judgment of 27th February 2025 pending appeal
The applicants did not demonstrate that the appeal would be rendered nugatory; any loss to the interested party is quantifiable in damages
Leave to adduce additional evidence on appeal
The documents were always available to the applicants and could have been produced with due diligence; the test of sufficient reason was not met
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
In the end, the entire application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
An applicant must demonstrate that they have an arguable appeal; and That the intended appeal (or appeal if already filed) will be rendered nugatory if the execution of the decree, order or proceedings is not stayed.
Further, as seen in the case of Yellow Horse Inns Ltd vs. A. A. Kawir Transporters & 4 Others [2014] eKLR, even one arguable ground is suficient.
Needless to say, damages sufiered by the interested party, if any, can be quantified and compensated in the event of a successful appeal.
We do not think suficient reasons have been laid before the court for the production of the ‘new evidence’, and for that reason, this prayer must also fail.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number and neutral citation of this application are not stated anywhere in the judgment text, and the coram is given only in the signature block without the Court of Appeal at Nyeri being formally identified as the station in the heading.
The judgment does not name the parties in a heading or caption; party roles (1st/2nd applicant, 1st/2nd respondent) are inferred only from the narrative, and the interested party is not named.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Speaker, County Assembly of Laikipia & another v Team Laikipia Community Based Organization & another; Hinga (Interested Party) (Civil Application E024 of 2025) [2025] KECA 2135 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2135/eng@2025-11-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.