Sigei v Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (Cause 42 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 391 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to release a decretal sum because the litigant consented to a stay, and only the Court of Appeal can kill a stalled appeal.
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 Court should lift/set aside the consensual order of stay of execution and release the decretal amount to the Claimant
- 2.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to deem the Respondent's Notice of Appeal to have been withdrawn
- 3.Who bears responsibility for the delay in prosecuting the Intended Appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the E&LRC can deem a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal withdrawn for want of prosecution
It cannot; that jurisdiction belongs to the Court of Appeal under Rules 85 and 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The Intended Appeal lies from the E&LRC to the Court of Appeal, so the Rules governing the Record of Appeal are the Court of Appeal's Procedural Rules. The trial Court's role is limited. Rules 85 and 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules would enable the Claimant to seek the same remedies from the Court of Appeal, which has jurisdiction once the Notice of Appeal is filed.
Whether the consensual stay of execution could be set aside
No; a consent order can only be set aside on proof that the consent was not voluntary
The Respondent established that the Ruling staying execution was procured through the consent of the Parties. The Court held it cannot revisit an order procured consensually, and the Claimant did not establish, nor claim, that his consent was not voluntary.
Responsibility for the inordinate delay in prosecuting the Intended Appeal
Neither Party is to blame; the delay is attributable to the Judiciary's failure to supply typed proceedings
The Respondent repeatedly requested typed proceedings from 2022 without success. The Court found a worrisome pattern of delay at E&LRC Kericho, amounting to a grave dereliction of the constitutional duty under Article 159(2)(b) that justice be not delayed. Blame was wrongly assigned to the Respondent rather than the Judiciary.
Legal principles established
#- Once a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal is filed, jurisdiction over its prosecution and withdrawal vests in the Court of Appeal, not the trial court
- A consensually recorded order of stay of execution cannot be set aside absent proof that consent was not voluntary
- The Court, not litigants, bears the legal obligation to supply typed proceedings, and delay in doing so violates Article 159(2)(b)
Court orders
#- 1.The orders sought by the Claimant through the Application dated 19th August 2024 are declined
- 2.The Respondent shall be supplied with typed and certified proceedings of the Court within 30 days of the Ruling
- 3.The Office of the Registrar shall ensure the proceedings are typed at any of the fully resourced Court Registries and are ready for certification and collection by the Parties within the given 30 days
- 4.The Office of the Registrar E&LRC to look into the source of delay in supply of typed proceedings at E&LRC Kericho and take urgent remedial measures
- 5.A copy of the Ruling shall be availed to the Registrar of the Court as soon as it is delivered
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original and supervisory jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; the Court expressly held that jurisdiction over the Intended Appeal to the Court of Appeal lies with the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Lifting of the order of stay of execution and release of the decretal amount to the Claimant
The stay was procured consensually by the Parties and the Court cannot revisit it
Deeming the Notice of Appeal to have been withdrawn
Jurisdiction over a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal rests with the Court of Appeal, not the E&LRC
Costs
No costs order was made in the judgment
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.
It is ordered: a. The orders sought by the Claimant, through the Application dated 19th August 2024 are declined.
Instead the Court orders that the Respondent shall be supplied with typed and certifi ed proceedings of the Court, within 30 days of this Ruling.
The E&LRC does not have jurisdiction to deem the Notice of Appeal to have been withdrawn, or to strike out the Notice.
It most de fi nitely cannot strike out the Notice of Appeal, or deem the same to have been withdrawn.
It is a grave dereliction of the Court's constitutional duty under Article 159 [2] [b], which requires that justice shall not be delayed.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the Claimant and Respondent and the cause number are not stated in the judgment excerpt
Chronology of the Respondent's letters appears inconsistent (16th September 2024 listed before 1st September 2024)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sigei v Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (Cause 42 of 2019) [2025] KEELRC 391 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (cause number not reproduced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/391/eng@2025-02-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.