Runo v Kenya Wildlife Service (Cause 1773 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 2320 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Test for stay of execution pending appeal
Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, imported by Rule 73 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, governs: substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security as ordered by the court.
Rule 73(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 directs that rules on execution or stay of execution of an order or decree of the Court shall be in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules. The court reproduced Order 42 Rule 6(2) and applied its three conditions, holding that the overriding objective under section 3 of the ELRC Act does not diminish that test but is considered alongside it.
Security from a public body
The applicant, being a state corporation funded by the exchequer, is exempt from furnishing security under Order 42 Rule 8 and the Supreme Court's decision in Kenya Wildlife Service v Sea Star Malindi Limited.
Order 42 Rule 8 dispenses with security from the Government or public officers sued in official capacity. The Supreme Court in SC Pet No. E022 of 2025 held that for a statutory body funded by public coffers, requiring security of a large amount would itself impede access to justice. The absence of a final decree fixing the security sum was therefore a mere technicality.
Substantial loss and burden of demonstrating ability to refund
The claimant/judgment holder failed to file an affidavit of means, so the applicant proved potential substantial loss, as the decretal sum if paid would be difficult to recover if the appeal succeeded.
Applying Boniface Kariuki Wahome v Peter Nziki Nyamai, once the applicant depones it cannot recover the decretal sum from the respondent, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate means and capacity to refund. The claimant's replying affidavit and submissions were silent on his means; by contrast, there was no risk the state corporation would fail to pay if the appeal failed.
Timeliness of the application
The application filed 20th February 2025, before expiry of the 30-day stay granted at judgment on 24th January 2025, was made without unreasonable delay.
Judgment was delivered on 24th January 2025 with a 30-day stay lapsing on 23rd February 2025. The application was filed on 20th February 2025, before the lapse, and the court found no delay in filing.
Legal principles established
#- Substantial loss is the cornerstone of an application for stay of execution pending appeal; where the judgment debtor gives no affidavit of means showing capacity to refund, the applicant need only depone that refund is doubtful.
- A statutory body funded by public coffers is exempt from furnishing security for stay of execution.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary order of stay of execution of the judgment dated 24th January 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the respondent's (Kenya Wildlife Service's) intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent/judgment creditor
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 44 and 45 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and the inherent powers of the court, with Rule 73(2) importing Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Runo v Kenya Wildlife Service (Cause 1773 of 2016) [2025] KEELRC 2320 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 20th February 2025 (in the suit following judgment delivered 24th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2320/eng@2025-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.