University of Nairobi v Mangana (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E145 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2768 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court paused enforcement of a KSh 3.2 million award against the University of Nairobi, exempting it from depositing security because it is a public institution.
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 satisfied the conditions for grant of a stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 17th April, 2025 pending appeal, namely substantial loss, application made without unreasonable delay, and security for costs
Key legal issues
#Whether substantial loss would result if stay is not granted
Substantial loss was established because the respondent's ability to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeds was not demonstrated, and there were triable issues on whether the CBA applies retrospectively to gratuity
The court applied the test in James Wangalwa that mere execution does not amount to substantial loss. However, since the respondent had not shown he could refund the decretal sum of Kshs 3,195,398.12, the appeal risked being rendered nugatory. The memorandum of appeal disclosed triable issues on retrospective application of the 2013-2017 CBA to gratuity for service from 1987 to 2021, justifying preservation of the decretal sum pending appeal.
Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay
The application was made within a reasonable period
The trial court had granted an interim stay of 30 days from 17th April, 2025, which lapsed on 16th May, 2025, and the application was filed on 19th May, 2025, only three days later, which the court found to be a reasonable period.
Whether the appellant, a public university, should deposit security for costs
The appellant, being a public institution, should not be compelled to deposit security for costs
Order 42 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules exempts the Government and public officers sued in official capacity from providing security. The court followed its own earlier decision in Teachers Service Commission v Benson Kuria Mwangi, holding that a public institution paying from public funds need not deposit security, and the decretal sum is assured if the appeal fails.
Legal principles established
#- No order for stay of execution shall be made unless substantial loss may result to the applicant, the application is made without unreasonable delay, and security for due performance of the decree is given
- A public institution sued in respect of its official acts is not required to deposit security by virtue of Order 42 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree delivered on 17th April, 2025 in MCELRC No. 2053 of 2022 granted pending appeal
- 2.The appellant to file the record of appeal within 30 days of the order or be at liberty to apply and show reasonable cause why the appeal has not been filed
- 3.Mention on 8th December, 2025 to confirm compliance and/or further orders
- 4.Costs shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (ELRC)
- MCELRC No. 2053 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 21 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024; 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.
In the interest of justice having looked at the grounds in the memorandum of appeal this court gives the Applicant a chance to have his appeal first heard and determined. This will avoid rendering the appeal nugatory.
a. The Applicant is ordered to file the record of Appeal in the court within 30 days of this order and or be at liberty to apply and show reasonable cause why such appeal has not been filed.
c. Costs shall be in the cause.
The application is therefore found with merit and is allowed in the following terms:
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "University of Nairobi v Mangana (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E145 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2768 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Stay application dated 19th May, 2025 in appeal from MCELRC No. 2053 of 2022 (Rayori Isaac Mangana vs University of Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2768/eng@2025-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.