Wachiuri v Kaisugu Limited (Cause E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3768 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused an employer's bid to stop execution of a Kshs 1.8 million award because it delayed nearly a year and offered no security.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay and demonstrated substantial loss and security
Stay refused: filed almost a year after judgment, substantial loss not established, and no security offered
The judgment was delivered on 23rd July 2024 and the application dated 11th June 2025, nearly a year later, which the court held was not within a reasonable time. The applicant also failed to show how it would suffer if warrants were executed, and offered no security or deposit of the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account. All three requirements under Order 42 Rule 6(2) therefore failed.
Whether review of the judgment on computation of statutory deductions was merited
Review refused; the judgment is not ambiguous and clearly awarded Kshs.1,795,856/= less statutory deductions
The applicant sought clarification on the computation of statutory deductions under Rule 74(1). The court held there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no new evidence. Once the gross award was made, remitting statutory deductions was the employer's obligation; on failure to remit, the law allows the court to direct the employer to refund and pay using its own funds.
Legal principles established
#- Once a court awards a salary figure, it is the employer's obligation to remit statutory deductions (SHIF, NSSF, PAYE); failure by the employer to exercise this statutory mandate is not excusable
- Mere initiation of execution does not amount to substantial loss for purposes of stay of execution
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for stay of execution of the decree is not allowed as the principles required to be met pending granting of stay have not been satisfied
- 2.The prayer for review of the judgment is NOT granted, there being no error or new evidence adduced to justify review or to set the judgment aside
- 3.The judgment of Justice Hellen Wasilwa is not ambiguous; the outstanding amount is less statutory deductions as per the decree dated 11th June 2025
- 4.Each party will meet their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 33(1)(a) of the Employment & Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 22 Rule 22 and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wachiuri v Kaisugu Limited (Cause E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 3768 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3768/eng@2025-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.