Marango & 122 others v Kedong Ranch Limited (Petition E009 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 4144 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer won a pause on paying a Kshs 3.5 million judgment, but only if it deposits the full amount in a joint interest-earning account within 60 days.
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 application for stay of execution was filed without inordinate delay
- 2.Whether the applicant stands to suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted
- 3.Whether the applicant is willing to provide security for the due performance of the decree
- 4.Whether the intended appeal is arguable and whether stay should issue on conditions
Key legal issues
#Whether the three conditions for stay under Order 42 rule 6(2) were satisfied
Delay was not demonstrated; substantial loss was not convincingly shown but security was offered, so stay was granted conditionally
The court restated the three Order 42 rule 6(2) conditions: absence of delay, demonstration of substantial loss, and security. The applicant filed the application within days of judgment and notice of appeal, so no delay. The claim that respondents were men of straw failed because they remain employees from whom the applicant could recover. The applicant's offer of security persuaded the court to grant a conditional stay balancing the parties' interests.
Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if execution proceeds
The substantial loss argument was rejected on the facts, as the respondents are employees of the applicant
The applicant argued the Kshs 3,549,270/- decretal sum was colossal and the petitioners were men of straw unable to refund. The court held this was not a good argument given the continuing employment relationship, meaning the applicant could recover any sums paid should the appeal succeed. Substantial loss was therefore not squarely established, though the court tempered this by requiring a deposit as security.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution pending appeal may be granted conditionally upon deposit of the decretal sum as security, with execution to proceed in default
- Where the decree holders are employees of the applicant, allegations that they are men of straw who cannot refund the decretal sum are weak grounds for stay
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 31st May 2022 by Hon. Lady Justice H. Wasilwa is granted on condition that the applicant deposits the entire decretal sum in an interest earning account held in the joint names of counsel on record within 60 days
- 2.In default of the deposit, execution may proceed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 rule 6 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, cap 21
Relief refused
#Unconditional stay of execution pending appeal
Stay granted only conditionally; the respondents are employees of the applicant and can be recovered from, so unconditional stay was not warranted
Costs of the application (not expressly awarded to either party)
The ruling makes no provision for costs of the application
Costs
No costs order made; the ruling is silent on costs
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.
i will allow stay of execution on the condition that the applicants deposits the entire decretal sum in an interest earning account held in joint names of counsels on record within 60 days.
In default execution may proceed.
Under order 42 rule 6(2) of the CPC stay orders are granted based on satisfying 3 conditions first being no delay, secondly in demonstrating that if the application is not allowed the applicants stand to suffer. Lastly the issue of security for Judgment is important.
This per se is not a good argument given that the respondents are all employees of the applicant and so the applicants are still in a position to recover what they are owed if the appeal succeeds.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling refers to the same parties inconsistently - the respondent company is called both 'respondent/applicant' and 'applicant', while the petitioners are called both 'petitioners' and 'respondents', creating potential confusion over roles
The case number and the names of the parties are not stated anywhere in the ruling, limiting identification of the underlying suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marango & 122 others v Kedong Ranch Limited (Petition E009 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 4144 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2022/4144/eng@2022-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.