Rosslyn Valley Developments v Amayi & 7 others (Appeal E177 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2466 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court paused an employment case pending appeal over whether the three-year time limit for filing claims includes time spent in conciliation.
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 appellant has established an arguable appeal warranting a stay of proceedings in the lower court
- 2.Whether it is in the interest of justice to stay the proceedings in Nairobi CMELR Cause No. E2540 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive appeal
Key legal issues
#Arguability of the intended appeal on limitation under section 89 of the Employment Act
On a prima facie basis, an arguable appeal was established given the tension between the impugned ruling and section 89 of the Employment Act
The trial court had held that the suit was not time-barred because the period of conciliation should be excluded when reckoning limitation under the Employment Act. The court noted that limitation goes to the jurisdiction of the court and took into account section 89 of the Employment Act, which requires such actions to be commenced within three years. This disclosed an arguable appeal, not one that must succeed.
Whether stay of proceedings was justified in the interest of justice
Stay was justified because further steps by the lower court on a jurisdictional question would be a nullity and a waste of judicial time if the appeal succeeded
Applying the Global Tours & Travels principles and the MV Lilian 's jurisdictional principle, the court weighed the pros and cons. Since limitation goes to jurisdiction, allowing the lower court to proceed while that question was on appeal risked null proceedings. With an arguable appeal established and the application brought expeditiously, the interest of justice favoured a stay.
Legal principles established
#- Where a question of jurisdiction is raised, the court seized of the matter must decide it immediately and take no further steps if it finds itself without jurisdiction
- Whether to grant a stay of proceedings is a matter of judicial discretion exercised in the interest of justice, weighing the need for expeditious disposal, the arguability of the appeal, judicial time and expedition in bringing the application
Court orders
#- 1.Application allowed
- 2.Stay of the proceedings in Nairobi CMELR Cause No. E2540 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive appeal
- 3.Costs in the cause
- 4.Record of appeal to be filed within 30 days
- 5.Mention on 21st October 2025 to issue further court directions concerning the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrates Court (Employment and Labour Relations) at Nairobi
- Nairobi CMELR Cause No. E2540 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3)(i) and (viii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rules 44 and 5(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings pending inter partes hearing and determination of the application
The stay was granted in terms of prayer (iii) only, by way of the final order staying proceedings pending the substantive appeal, making the interlocutory prayer redundant
Costs
Costs in the cause
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 is allowed. This Honourable Court is pleased to grant a stay of the proceedings in Nairobi CMELR Cause No. E2540 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive appeal. Cost in the cause.
The record of appeal must be filed within 30 days. Mention on 21st October 2025 to issue further Court directions concerning the appeal.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
the stay of proceedings is justified for the court to decide on the jurisdiction as any further steps by the lower court , if , without jurisdiction, would be a nullity and a wastage of previous judicial time
the court’s general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceeding beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the cause as both 'Nairobi CMELR Cause No. 62540 of 2024' and 'Nairobi CMELR Cause No. E2540 of 2024' within the prayers, an apparent typographical inconsistency.
The grounds state the pre-trial conference date inconsistently with the cause number year: the cause is of 2024 yet the grounds state the pre-trial conference is scheduled for 24 June 2024.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rosslyn Valley Developments v Amayi & 7 others (Appeal E177 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2466 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nairobi CMELR Cause No. E2540 of 2024 (Stay Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2466/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.