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 judgment

Silet v Kenya Ports Authority (Miscellaneous Application E054 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 810 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
13 March 2025
MMM. Mbarũ
977 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

#

Kenya Ports Authority failed to stop enforcement of a workplace injury award because it could not prove an appeal had actually been filed or show substantial loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Kenya Ports Authority, the respondent, applied on 21 February 2025 for stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 17 January 2025, by which the court adopted the award of the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services issued on 7 March 2023, pending an appeal it said was pending before the Court of Appeal. The application was supported by an affidavit of Mary Ng'ang'a, a legal officer of Jubilee Allianz Insurance Company, the respondent's insurer, who averred that the appeal had a high chance of success and offered to deposit security. The applicant opposed, contending that no appeal had been filed or served, that the notice of appeal was filed out of time without extension under Rule 77(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, that it was never served within the seven days required by Rule 79(1), and that no draft memorandum of appeal was attached, making the intended appeal an afterthought. The court found that the decree of 17 January 2025 was not attached and that the only ruling on record was that of 11 October 2024. It held that the appeal before the Court of Appeal was not disclosed; that an intention to appeal alone, unactualised through a notice or memorandum, cannot negate court orders; and that an offer of security without a foundation of an appeal is insufficient. Applying Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Court of Appeal authority including Kenya Shell Limited v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru, the court found no demonstration of substantial loss. The application was dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the respondent demonstrated an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal to warrant stay of execution
  2. 2.Whether the respondent satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including substantial loss
  3. 3.Whether the offer of security alone justifies a stay

Key legal issues

#
01

Disclosure of a pending appeal

Holding

The subject appeal before the Court of Appeal was not disclosed; no memorandum, notice or other material confirmed the intention to appeal

Reasoning

The court observed that the judgment/decree sought to be stayed was not attached and that the only ruling on record was issued on 11 October 2024. Even where an intention to appeal is disclosed, it must be actualised through a memorandum or notice. Without proof of an appeal pending, the intention to appeal is not apparent and stay cannot issue.

p. 2
02

Substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6

Holding

The respondent failed to demonstrate substantial loss it would suffer if stay was not granted

Reasoning

Relying on Court of Appeal authority, the court held that substantial loss is the cornerstone for granting a stay. The respondent did not address the loss to be suffered, only offering security. Sufficient cause under Order 42 Rule 6 was absent, so the ends of justice did not require a stay.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An intention to appeal alone, without a filed and served notice or memorandum of appeal, is insufficient to ground a stay of execution
  • Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution; without evidence of substantial loss a stay will not issue
  • An offer of security without a foundation of an appeal does not justify staying execution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 21 February 2025 seeking stay of execution is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the applicant/respondent

The bench

#

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

MM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules (stay of execution pending appeal)

Relief refused

#

Stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 17 January 2025 pending appeal

No pending appeal disclosed; no substantial loss demonstrated; intention to appeal not actualised

p. 3

Costs

Dismissed with costs to the applicant/respondent

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.

Accordingly, the application dated 21 February 2025 is without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the applicant/respondent.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal of stay application
Even where such disclosure was made, the intention to appeal alone is insuficient to negate the court orders.
p. 2Intention to appeal insufficient for stay
Substantial loss, in its various forms, is the cornerstone of both jurisdictions for granting a stay.
p. 2Substantial loss as cornerstone of stay (quoting Kenya Shell Ltd v Kibiru)
The ofier to give security for the due performance of the judgment without the foundation of an appeal is not suficient to stop execution.
p. 2Security offer without appeal insufficient

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Roles of the parties are inconsistently described - Kenya Ports Authority is the respondent yet described as 'the applicant' in submissions and the claimant as 'applicant/respondent'

minor

The judgment/decree of 17 January 2025 that the court adopted the DOSH award is said not to be attached, yet the dismissal proceeds on its existence

minor

Affidavit describes Mary Ng'ang'a as legal officer of Jubilee Allianz Insurance Company, the insurer of the respondent, creating ambiguity as to the deponent's capacity

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Silet v Kenya Ports Authority (Miscellaneous Application E054 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 810 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/810/eng@2025-03-13

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