Stubbs v Murage & 3 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court paused contempt proceedings and execution against a claimant and his law firm pending appeal, and allowed the firm to join the case.
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 Court has jurisdiction to stay execution of, and stay proceedings pursuant to, its Ruling of 18th March 2026 pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
- 2.Whether the threshold for stay of execution and stay of proceedings was met
- 3.Whether Joseph Nicholas Murage, Kagoro Juma and Mark Irungu (trading as Murage Juma & Company Advocates) should be joined as applicants to prosecute and be heard on the application
Key legal issues
#Whether to stay execution of, and proceedings pursuant to, the Ruling of 18th March 2026 pending the intended appeal
Stay of proceedings and further stay of execution of the Ruling of 18th March 2026 were granted.
The parties litigated the jurisdictional question and the Order 42 Rule 6(2) thresholds at length: the Claimant relied on Endere v Ochiri, Thiong'o v Ontonyi, Tropical Commodities and In re DPN to show the court appealed from may stay and that contempt sanctions threaten liberty; the Respondent relied on Wendano Matuu, Muturi v Ndumbi and Econet Wireless to argue no executable order had crystallized and that substantial loss was speculative. The court made no findings on any of these; it simply found a stay of proceedings necessary so the issues raised could be considered, and allowed further stay of execution.
Whether the advocates (Murage Juma & Company Advocates) should be joined to be heard on the application
Joinder of the Applicants was allowed for the limited purpose of prosecuting and being heard on the application afresh.
The advocates argued, citing Cogno Ventures (Supreme Court) and Directline Assurance, that contempt findings against a non-joined, non-cited law firm violate audi alteram partem; the Respondent countered that joinder is not automatic, that contempt attaches to conduct with knowledge regardless of formal status (Carey v Laiken; Shimmers Plaza), and that review thresholds under Section 16 ELRC Act and Order 45 were unmet. The court did not engage these arguments; referencing an unexplained ruling of 10th April 2026, it allowed joinder solely so the Applicants could prosecute and be heard on the application afresh.
Legal principles established
#- A trial court may stay proceedings in, and stay execution of, its own ruling to allow the issues raised in an application and an intended appeal to be considered.
- Persons adversely affected by a ruling who were not parties may be joined for the limited purpose of prosecuting and being heard on an application.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of proceedings granted, to allow the issues raised in the application and the intended appeal to be considered
- 2.Further stay of execution of the Ruling of 18th March 2026 allowed
- 3.Joseph Nicholas Murage, Kagoro Juma (trading as Murage Juma & Company Advocates) and Mark Irungu joined as applicants for the purpose of prosecuting and being heard on the application afresh
- 4.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (power of the court appealed from to stay execution pending appeal); the advocates additionally invoked the court's inherent and review jurisdiction (Section 16 Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Order 45 Civil Procedure Rules; Rule 74 ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024)
Relief refused
#Applicants' prayer for a finding that no positive order directed towards Murage Juma & Company Advocates was breached capable of founding contempt
The court stayed execution and proceedings and allowed joinder but made no finding on the alleged nullity of the contempt findings against the firm.
Costs of the applications as sought by both the Claimant and the Applicants
The court made no award to either party, ordering costs in the cause instead.
Respondent's prayer for dismissal of both applications with costs and for the Court to proceed to mitigation and sentencing
Both applications were allowed in substance rather than dismissed; the court stayed execution and proceedings and allowed joinder.
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.
Having considered the averments herein, I do find that there would be need to stay the proceedings in order for the issues raised in the application and intended appeal to be considered.
I therefore allow further stay of execution of the ruling of 18/3/26.
In view of the ruling of the application dated 10th April 2026, I will allow joinder of the applicants in this case for purpose of prosecuting and being heard on this application afresh. Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date conflict: the Claimant's application is dated 6th May 2025, though it seeks to stay a Ruling of 18th March 2026 and is elsewhere stated as filed on 6th May 2026.
Party-designation conflict: the caption styles the advocates as Respondents while the body, their motion and the orders treat them as Applicants whose joinder was allowed.
The joinder order rests on a 'ruling of the application dated 10th April 2026' which is nowhere set out or explained in the judgment.
Respondent's own prayer is recorded as dismissal 'with costs to the Claimant', presumably an error for costs to the Respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stubbs v Murage & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Cause E272 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2529/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.