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 the judgment as extracted

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Mahee Flowers Limited (Cause E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1870 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 June 2025
JRJAMES RIKA
637 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to pause payment of an unfair termination award, ruling the union's financial stability makes any refund on appeal easy.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Judgment had been delivered on 28th November 2024 in favour of the Grievant, Kennedy Kariuki Macharia, whose claim was brought by his trade union, the Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Grievant, through the union, gratuity and compensation for unfair termination amounting to Kshs. 334,163. The Respondent intended to appeal to the Court of Appeal and, by an application dated 17th December 2024 supported by the affidavit of its Group Human Resource Manager, Vitalis Osodo, sought a stay of execution pending appeal, arguing it would suffer irreparable loss, that it had an arguable appeal with high chances of success, that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and that it was willing to offer security without delay. The Claimant opposed through the affidavit of its official Thomas Kipkemboi, contending the application was intended to delay finalization, that irreparable loss and arguable appeal had not been demonstrated, and that security is a matter for the Court's discretion. Parties agreed the application be determined on affidavits and written submissions. The Court found that any doubt about the Grievant's ability to repay was offset by the Claimant Union's undisputed ability to refund: it is a large, old, stable and reputable union representing tens of thousands of workers, with a Recognition Agreement and executed CBAs with the Agricultural Employers' Association, and an ongoing labour relationship with the Respondent. The Court held the Respondent's right of appeal is secure and that the Grievant merits closure and the fruits of conciliation and litigation. The application was declined with 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 demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable loss if execution of the decree proceeds
  2. 2.Whether the Respondent has an arguable appeal with probability of success that would be rendered nugatory
  3. 3.Whether the Respondent has offered adequate security

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution should issue where the decree-holder is a stable union able to refund

Holding

Stay declined; the Claimant's capacity to refund negates irreparable loss and nugatory-ness.

Reasoning

The Court found the Claimant a large, old, stable and reputable union with a Recognition Agreement and executed CBAs with the Respondent's umbrella body. Any decretal sum paid would be recoverable if the appeal succeeds, so the Respondent would not suffer irreparable loss. The Grievant merits closure and enjoyment of the fruits of conciliation and litigation, and the Respondent's right of appeal remains secure.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A well-established trade union with capacity to refund the decretal sum is adequate security against a nugatory appeal, and the Grievant deserves the fruits of conciliation and litigation.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 17th December 2024 filed by the Respondent 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 jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over the application for stay of execution pending appeal

Relief refused

#

Order of stay of execution pending appeal

The Claimant Union is a large, stable and reputable trade union capable of refunding the decretal sum if the intended appeal succeeds, so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory; the Respondent's right of appeal is secure.

p. 2

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.

It would not be dificult at all, for the Respondent to recover the decretal sum from the Claimant, if the appeal is successful.
p. 2Ability to repay as ground against stay
The application dated 17th December 2024 filed by the Respondent is declined.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of stay application
No order on the costs.
p. 2Costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Mahee Flowers Limited (Cause E004 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1870 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as extracted. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1870/eng@2025-06-20

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