Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in extract

Ombajo v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya [ICPAK] (Cause 224 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 606 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
28 February 2025
JRJames Rika
917 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling by Rika J of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru on the Respondent's application dated 25th July 2024 seeking stay of execution of a Trial Court Ruling dated 16th July 2024, which awarded the Claimant Kshs. 6,478,687 in compensation and terminal benefits; after set-off of the Counterclaim sum of Kshs. 1,165,000, judgment stood at Kshs. 5,398,687. The underlying Claim, filed in 2014, was first dismissed with the Counterclaim allowed, but the Court of Appeal on 2nd December 2022 reversed that outcome, holding the dismissal unfair, and remitted the matter for assessment of damages. Wasilwa J assessed the award in a Ruling of 16th July 2024. The Respondent intended to challenge that assessment on appeal and sought stay. The Claimant opposed, exhibiting substantial land holdings, including one parcel valued at Kshs. 11.5 million, and offered to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded; he also proposed that any stay be conditioned on deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account. Rika J held the intended appeal fell within a narrow compass of monetary compensation, and that the decisive question was whether the decretal sum would be irrecoverable if the appeal reduced the award. Finding the Claimant a man of demonstrable wealth, a former Director Finance earning Kshs. 594,375 monthly, the Court concluded the appeal would not be rendered academic if execution proceeded. Emphasising closure of an 11-year-old dispute, the Court dismissed the application and made no order on costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Respondent has satisfied the principles for grant of stay of execution of the Ruling dated 16th July 2024 pending its intended appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution pending appeal should issue

Holding

Application declined; the Claimant is not a necessitous litigant and can refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds, so execution will not render the appeal academic, and closure of the long-running dispute favours execution

Reasoning

The intended appeal is confined to the quantum of monetary compensation. The key consideration is whether the decretal sum would be irrecoverable from the Claimant if the appeal reduces the award. The Claimant exhibited land certificates and had earned a substantial salary as Director Finance, demonstrating wealth far in excess of the decree. The Court also weighed the age of the Claim filed in 2014 and the need for closure. Accordingly the stay application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A stay of execution pending appeal will be refused where the decree-holder has demonstrable means to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds, so the appeal will not be rendered nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Application by the Respondent dated 25th July 2024 is declined
  2. 2.No order on the costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JR
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court; application for stay of execution pending appeal

Relief refused

#

Stay of execution of the Trial Court Ruling dated 16th July 2024 pending intended appeal

The Claimant has demonstrated sufficient means to refund the decretal sum should the intended appeal succeed, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory; the parties need closure of an 11-year-old dispute

p. 3

Costs

No order on the 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.

The Claimant has exhibited his wealth before the Court. He is not a necessitous litigant. He belongs to the landed gentry, with demonstrable wealth, far in excess of the value of the contested decretal sum.
p. 2Financial capacity to refund decretal sum
It Is Ordered: a. The Application by the Respondent dated 25th July 2024 is declined. b. No order on the costs.
p. 3Final orders
The Court and the Parties must endeavour to have closure.
p. 3Need for closure in aged litigation

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Internal inconsistency in the Ruling date: paragraph 8 refers to a Ruling dated 16th July 2024, but paragraph 20 refers to 'the Ruling of the Trial Court dated 16th July 2025'

minor

Inconsistent decretal sum figures: paragraphs 9 and 20 state Kshs. 5,398,687, while paragraph 18 states Kshs. 5,398,697

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ombajo v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya [ICPAK] (Cause 224 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 606 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/606/eng@2025-02-28

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