Kiambaa Primary School v Omuzee (Appeal E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3719 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court allowed a public school to appeal late and halted enforcement of a judgment against it, citing unavoidable bureaucratic delays.
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 meets the threshold for enlargement of time for filing appeal
- 2.whether the Appellant meets the threshold for grant of stay of execution
- 3.who should pay costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Enlargement of time to file appeal under section 79G CPA and Order 50 Rule 6
The delay was not deliberate and was sufficiently explained by the need for Board resolutions and bureaucratic processes of a public primary school; extension granted.
Section 79G requires appeals to be filed within 30 days unless the appellant shows good and sufficient cause. The Applicant explained that the Board had to convene to resolve to appeal and that administrative procedures for public institutions delayed instructions to the Attorney General. The prior application was struck out on jurisdictional, not merit, grounds. The court found the delay reasonable and non-deliberate.
Stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6
Substantial loss was demonstrated by the Respondent's lack of known means of refunding the decretal amount, and the application was made without unreasonable delay; security not required of a government institution.
Order 42 Rule 6 requires substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. The court accepted that the Respondent has no known means of refunding the decretal amount as sufficient cause. Order 42 Rule 8 and section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act exempt the Government from depositing security and from execution/attachment, so no security was ordered.
Concurrent jurisdiction of trial and appellate courts to grant stay
Both courts have concurrent jurisdiction under Order 42 Rule 6; the trial court erred in striking out the earlier application on jurisdictional grounds.
The court observed sua sponte that Order 42 Rule 6(1) expressly permits the court appealed from to order stay, whether or not it granted or refused such stay earlier, and permits the appellate court to consider stay applications. The trial court therefore had jurisdiction and should not have struck out the Appellant's application on jurisdictional grounds.
Legal principles established
#- Delay occasioned by bureaucratic/administrative processes within a public institution may constitute good and sufficient cause for enlargement of time where not deliberate.
- The Government (or a public institution defended by the Government) is exempt from depositing security for due performance of a decree.
- The trial court and the appellate court have concurrent jurisdiction to grant stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6; a trial court should not strike out a stay application on jurisdictional grounds.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25th June, 2025 is allowed
- 2.Leave granted to the Appellant to lodge an appeal out of time from the judgment and decree of the Chief Magistrate in Eldoret CMELRC No. 48 of 2020
- 3.Stay of execution and further proceedings in Eldoret CMELRC No. 48 of 2020 pending hearing and determination of the appeal
- 4.The costs of the application shall be borne by the Appellant in any event, irrespective of the outcome of the Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Eldoret (CMELRC)
- Eldoret CMELRC No. 48 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3, 3A and 79G of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 42 Rule 6, Order 50 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 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.
I am satisfied that there was no deliberate delay and that the delay is reasonable taking into account that the Applicant is a public primary school where decisions such as lodging appeal must be made by resolution of the Board.
The Appellant has submitted that the Respondent has no known means of refunding the decretal amount should the Appellant be compelled to pay the same to her. This in my view is suficient cause to grant orders of stay of execution.
The trial court thus had jurisdiction to grant orders of stay of execution of its judgement and decree and should not have struck out the Appellant's application on grounds of jurisdiction.
Consequently, I allow the application dated 25th June, 2025. The costs of this application shall be borne by the Appellant in any event, irrespective of the outcome of the Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment allows the application for stay and extension of time but does not set out formal numbered final orders; the disposition is expressed in a single concluding sentence.
The coram heading and case number of the application are not stated in the extract; the parties are referred to as Appellant/Respondent although the matter is an interlocutory application in a first appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiambaa Primary School v Omuzee (Appeal E047 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 3719 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Eldoret CMELRC No. 48 of 2020 (Application dated 25th June, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3719/eng@2025-12-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.