Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedELRC Appeal No. E068 of 2026

Robinson Investments Limited v Jestine Nelima Makhanu

Employment & Labour Relations Court
25 September 2026
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
2,166 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employment court paused collection of a Kshs.956,139 award because the employer showed it might never recover the money if its appeal succeeded.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Robinson Investments Limited, the appellant in a contemplated appeal against a magistrates' court award of Kshs.956,139.60 plus interest and costs delivered on 26th May 2026 in Nakuru MCELRC E291 of 2024, moved the ELRC at Nakuru by Notice of Motion dated 29th June 2026 seeking stay of execution of that decree pending the hearing of its application and of the appeal. The application was brought under Rule 21(2) of the ELRC Rules 2024, Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, supported by an affidavit of the appellant's Human Resource Manager, Stephen Mogusu Nyangwono. The appellant argued that a 30-day stay had lapsed on 26th June 2026, that the application was filed timeously, that execution would cause substantial loss because the respondent had not demonstrated capacity to refund, and offered a bank guarantee as security. The respondent opposed, contending the application was misconceived, that monetary decrees are not rendered nugatory by appeal, and proposing that half the decretal sum be deposited and half released to her, dismissing the bank guarantee as inadequate security. Parties filed written submissions. The court, per Mwaure J, framed a single issue: whether the applicant had established valid reasons to grant stay. Applying Order 42 Rule 6(2) and Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, and following Krishen Dev Handa v Fatuma Mohamed, the court found the conditions satisfied and granted stay pending the intended appeal, conditioned on deposit of the decretal sum into a joint interest-earning account in the joint names of the advocates within 21 days, with the appeal to be filed within 21 days. Costs of the application were to be in the intended appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Applicant has established valid reasons to grant stay of execution

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2)

Holding

The application was merited: the Applicant filed within a reasonable time, demonstrated risk of substantial loss, and expressed willingness to provide security.

Reasoning

The court applied Order 42 Rule 6(2), noting the 30-day initial stay lapsed on 26th June 2026 and the application was filed on 29th June 2026, a reasonable period. The Applicant feared the Respondent could not refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded, establishing substantial loss, and offered a bank guarantee as security. The court relied on Krishen Dev Handa v Fatuma Mohamed where the Court of Appeal granted stay on similar grounds.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • An applicant for stay under Order 42 Rule 6(2) must show substantial loss, filing without unreasonable delay, and willingness to furnish security.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the judgment and decree given on 26th May 2026 in Nakuru MCELRC E291 of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
  2. 2.The decretal sum of Kshs.956,139.60/= be deposited in a joint interest-earning account in the joint names of the advocates for the parties within 21 days
  3. 3.The appeal to be filed within 21 days
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be in the intended appeal

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AM
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Nakuru Magistrates' Court
Nakuru MCELRC E291 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 21(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules 2024; Order 42 Rule 6(1), (2) and (6) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

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 court having considered the pleadings, submissions and applicable law holds that this application for stay of execution is merited and is therefore granted.
p. 11Disposition - stay granted
The court finds that the Appellant/Applicant has satisfied the requirements under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, having filed the application within a reasonable time, demonstrated the risk of substantial loss, and expressed willingness to provide security for the decretal amount.
p. 11Satisfaction of Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions
The court directs that the decretal sum of Kshs.956,139.60/= be deposited in a joint earning interest account in the joint names of the advocates representing the parties within 21 days from this date.
p. 12Security condition - deposit into joint interest-earning account

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Caption mislabels the supporting affidavit as the Respondent's though it supports the Appellant/Applicant

minor

Case number styled 'ELRC APPEAL NO. E068 OF 2026' with a 2026 date, yet the underlying decree is from MCELRC E291 of 2024 decided 26th May 2026

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robinson Investments Limited v Jestine Nelima Makhanu", Case Analysis (2026). ELRC Appeal No. E068 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2556/eng@2026-09-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.