Cheriez Properties Limited v Cheburet & another (Appeal E002 & E003 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 725 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The ELRC refused an employer's request to pause payment orders because it failed to attach the actual rulings it wanted stayed.
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 stay the ruling of Hon. B. Ojoo dated 11.01.2024 ordering status quo ante to be preserved pending the hearing and determination of the appeals
- 2.Whether the impugned orders amounted to substantial loss / summary determination of the suit at the interlocutory stage
- 3.How the two appeals and their accompanying applications should be managed (consolidation and lead file)
Key legal issues
#Whether the trial court's status quo ante order (requiring payment of the surcharged amount) warranted a stay pending appeal
The Court was inclined to grant the stay because the order appeared to determine the dispute at an interlocutory stage, but declined the prayer solely because the impugned rulings and orders were not exhibited
The Court reasoned that questions such as whether the dismissal was fair and whether the surcharge was valid or fair must be determined at full hearing; requiring payment at the interlocutory stage would amount to substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the applicant's failure to exhibit the rulings and orders meant the Court could not grant the specific stay sought.
Case management of the two appeals and the associated applications
The two appeals were consolidated, with appeal E002 of 2024 as the lead file, and the files were ordered returned to the Machakos Sub-registry
Both appeals raised related applications filed through the same advocates, and the respondent did not oppose. Consolidation with a designated lead file and a mention date was directed to secure expeditious determination of the appeals.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking stay of a ruling must exhibit the impugned ruling and orders; the Court cannot stay documents not placed before it
- Interlocutory orders that require payment before a full hearing amount to substantial loss because issues such as fairness of dismissal and validity of a surcharge must go to full hearing
Court orders
#- 1.Declined the prayer for stay of the rulings and orders by Hon. B. Ojoo in the two suits ordering that status quo ante be preserved pending the hearing and determination of the appeals, because the rulings and orders were not exhibited
- 2.Consolidated the two appeals with appeal E002 of 2024 as lead file; parties to fix a mention date for expeditious determination
- 3.No costs of the applications
- 4.The consolidated case files to be returned to the Machakos Sub-registry forthwith
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Act and rule 17(1) and (7) of the Employment and Labour Relations Rules
- Consolidated with
- Appeal E002 of 2024 designated lead file; the companion appeal consolidated into it (number not stated in judgment)
Relief refused
#Stay of the rulings and orders of Hon. B. Ojoo dated 11.01.2024 (status quo ante order) pending the hearing and determination of the appeals
The applicant failed to exhibit the impugned rulings and the orders flowing from them, so the Court could not grant a stay of documents not before it
Costs
No costs of the applications (the Court first stated 'The applications would be allowed with costs in the cause' but ultimately ordered 'No costs of the applications').
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 appeals are hereby consolidated and parties to fix a mention date for their expeditious determination with appeal E002 of 2024 as lead file.
The prayer thus “There be stay of the rulings and orders by Hon. B. Ojoo in the two suits ordering that the status quo ante be preserved pending the hearing and determination of the appeals.” is hereby declined as the rulings and orders in that respect have not been exhibited at all.
Requiring the appellant to pay as per the said rulings would amount to substantial loss.
The case files as now consolidated be returned to the Machakos Sub-registry forthwith.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction: the Court states the applications would be allowed with costs in the cause, then disallows them and declines the stay prayer
The contract renewal dates as pleaded appear inconsistent (renewed 05.01.2023 to 04.01.2023)
Identity and number of parties unclear: the judgment refers to 'both appeals' and 'the respondents' but does not set out the coram of parties or the second appeal's number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cheriez Properties Limited v Cheburet & another (Appeal E002 & E003 of 2024 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 725 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). E002 of 2024 (lead file), with a companion appeal consolidated thereto. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/725/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.