Republic v Director Occupational Safety and Health Services & another; Freedom Airline Epres Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2091 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court paused further execution of a Kshs 21.9 million award, but only after the losing party deposits Kshs 5 million security within 30 days.
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 applicants have preferred an appeal to the Court of Appeal and whether further execution of the judgment of this court should be stayed
- 2.Whether the court's order directing release of Kshs 10 million was erroneous in that it failed to take into account Kshs 2 million already released
- 3.Whether stay of the garnishee nisi orders and recovery of Kshs 21,918,620.80 should issue pending appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution should issue pending an appeal in the Court of Appeal
Stay was granted, but conditional on the applicants depositing security of Kshs 5 million within 30 days, failing which execution would proceed
The court observed that the ex parte applicants had preferred an application to the Court of Appeal against the judgment dated 11/6/2025 dismissing the Judicial Review application seeking to quash the Director of Occupation Safety and Health award dated 16/5/2024. To avoid further miscarriage of justice, the court allowed stay of further execution, imposed security of Kshs 5 million in a joint interest-earning account, and struck out all pending garnishee applications.
Whether the claim that the court erred in directing release of Kshs 10 million without accounting for Kshs 2 million already paid warranted relief
The issue had already been dealt with and the application on that point was overtaken by events
The applicants argued that the order directing release of 10 million was made in error because the 2 million already released was not taken into account. The court held it had already corrected that error, rendering that limb of the application moot; the notice of motion was premised on the same issue and required no fresh determination.
Legal principles established
#- Where a party has chosen to pursue an appeal rather than judicial review, stay of execution pending appeal may be granted on condition that security be deposited
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of further execution granted beyond the orders issued for release of moneys in MEB Ltd
- 2.Applicants to provide security for stay of Kshs 5,000,000 to be deposited in an interest-earning account held in joint names of counsels on record within 30 days
- 3.All pending garnishee applications struck out
- 4.In default of providing security, execution to proceed
- 5.Costs in the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly invoked; court acting in respect of its judgment dated 11/6/2025 dismissing a Judicial Review application, with an appeal pending in the Court of Appeal
Relief refused
#Stay of the already-issued orders for release of moneys in MEB Ltd (limited to 10 million issue)
The court had already dealt with the error regarding the Kshs 2 million already paid; the matter was overtaken by events
Costs
Costs in the appeal
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.
I will allow stay of further execution beyond orders issued for release of moneys in MEB Ltd and direct that the applicants provide security for the stay to the tune of 5 million to be deposited in an interest earning account held in joint names of counsels on record within 30 days. All pending garnishee applications are now struck out. In default thereof execution to proceed. Costs in the appeal.
This court determined that the applicant should have preferred an appeal and not a judicial review application before court.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling refers inconsistently to the same parties as 'respondents', 'applicants', 'applicants respondent', 'petitioners' and 'ex parte applicant', making the party roles unclear
The case number of the underlying judicial review application and the notice of motion is not stated in the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Director Occupational Safety and Health Services & another; Freedom Airline Epres Limited (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review E033 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 2091 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling (Judicial Review application, judgment dated 11/6/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2091/eng@2025-07-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.