Mwarania v Cabinet Secretary National Treasury and Planning & another; Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited (Interested Party) (Petition E034 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1349 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court paused collection of Kshs 425,000 in taxed costs pending appeal, but only because the losing party agreed to deposit the money in court.
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 Petitioner had satisfied the criteria for stay of execution of the ruling/decree taxing costs at Kshs 425,000/= pending the intended appeal
- 2.Whether the Petitioner would suffer substantial loss if stay is not granted
- 3.Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
- 4.Whether security for the due performance of the decree had been offered
Key legal issues
#Whether substantial loss was demonstrated
The Petitioner did not illustrate substantial loss beyond asserting the appeal would be rendered nugatory, but the court found it prejudicial if he succeeded on appeal after execution of costs.
The court observed that the Petitioner relied only on the intended appeal being rendered nugatory, without illustrating how he would suffer substantial loss. However, because the application was filed together with the Memorandum of Appeal, the court found it would be prejudicial to the Petitioner if he succeeded on appeal yet the Respondent had already executed the order on costs. The court therefore exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to allow the appeal to be heard first.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
Delay from 6th September 2024 to 23rd September 2024 was reasonable.
The ruling on taxation was delivered on 6th September 2024 and the application filed on 23rd September 2024, within the same month. The court found this period reasonable in all circumstances, satisfying the second condition under Order 42 Rule 6.
Whether security for costs was offered
Security is a requirement; stay granted on condition the applicant deposits the taxed sum within 45 days.
The Petitioner did not provide security in the application but stated in submissions he was willing to abide by the court's directions. Since security is a requirement under Order 42 Rule 6, the court conditioned the stay on the deposit of the taxed sum of Kshs 425,000/= to court within 45 days, failing which execution would proceed.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of execution requires substantial loss, absence of unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree.
- Execution being set in motion does not by itself amount to substantial loss; the applicant must show execution will irreparably negate the essential core of the appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the ruling/decree of 6th September 2024 taxing costs at Kshs 425,000/= granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.Condition: the applicant to deposit the taxed sum of Kshs 425,000/= to the court within 45 days of the order, in default execution to proceed
- 3.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
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 application for stay of execution is therefore granted on condition that the applicant deposits the taxed sum of Kshs 425,000/= to the court within 45 days of this order in default execution to proceed.
In the interest of justice having looked at the grounds in the memorandum of appeal this court gives the Petitioner a chance to have his appeal first heard and determined. This will avoid rendering the appeal nugatory.
Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.
The Petitioner does not seem to challenge the taxation ruling by preferring a reference but his issue is based on the intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The Interested Party/Respondent is referred to interchangeably as 'Interested Party' and 'Respondent', and its actual name is never stated in the judgment.
The judgment is styled a 'Petition' but the application is an ordinary interlocutory stay application under the Civil Procedure Rules.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwarania v Cabinet Secretary National Treasury and Planning & another; Kenya Reinsurance Corporation Limited (Interested Party) (Petition E034 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1349 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (ELRC Petition, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1349/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.