Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No. E548 of 2021· [2026] KEELRC 2674 (KLR)

Gordon Otieno Odundo v Kenya Hospital Association T/A The Nairobi Hospital

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
25 September 2026
2,425 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Nairobi Hospital won a stay of a Kshs.72.9 million judgment, but only if it deposits the full amount in a joint interest-earning account within 45 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Nzei, J of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi determines the Respondent's Notice of Motion seeking stay of execution of the judgment and decree of 22nd October 2025, by which the court awarded the Claimant Kshs.72,904,264.92 comprising 12 months' salary, 3 months' notice pay and credit card expenses deducted from terminal dues, pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Applicant relied on the affidavit of Gilbert Nyamweya, arguing an arguable appeal, and that payment of the large decretal sum would harm its cashflow, operations and patient care, rendering the appeal nugatory. The Claimant opposed, citing the Applicant's insolvency proceedings (Opticom (K) Limited v Kenya Hospital Association, Insolvency Notice E133 of 2024), disputes with insurers, and lack of evidence that he could not refund the sum. The court applied Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, holding that the Notice of Appeal dated 25th October 2025 deemed the appeal filed, and declined to assess arguability. Applying Charles Mutethia Mutea, Grace Wangechi Gikuju and Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, the court found substantial loss established since the Claimant adduced no evidence of income or assets demonstrating capacity to refund. Stay was granted conditionally: the Applicant must deposit the full judgment sum in an interest-earning account jointly held by both parties' advocates within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses automatically. Costs abide the outcome of the intended appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a valid appeal was on record

Holding

A notice of appeal filed within time suffices; the court declined to examine arguability of the intended appeal

Reasoning

Order 42 Rule 6(4) deems an appeal filed once notice of appeal is given. The Notice of Appeal dated 25th October 2025 was undisputed and filed within time. The court held that delving into the merits or arguability of the intended appeal would amount to sitting on appeal over its own judgment, a matter reserved for the Court of Appeal.

p. 9
02

Whether substantial loss was demonstrated

Holding

Substantial loss established because the Claimant did not demonstrate ability to refund the decretal sum

Reasoning

Relying on Charles Mutethia Mutea and Grace Wangechi Gikuju, the court noted that once an applicant raises doubt about the respondent's financial status, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to show capacity to refund. The Claimant exhibited no evidence of his income or asset base, so the apprehension of substantial loss was well founded.

p. 12
03

Security for due performance

Holding

Stay granted conditionally on deposit of the full judgment sum in a joint interest-earning account

Reasoning

The Applicant had offered no security, but the court balanced the parties' interests by imposing a condition: deposit of Kshs.72,904,264.92 in an interest-earning account jointly held by both parties' advocates within 45 days, failing which the stay lapses automatically. This secures the decree while preserving the appeal.

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal is deemed filed upon lodgement of a notice of appeal for purposes of Order 42 Rule 6
  • A court granting stay must secure the sanctity of the decree by ordering security for due performance
  • Stay discretion must be exercised so the appeal, if successful, is not rendered nugatory

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution of the Court's decree and further proceedings pending hearing and determination of the intended appeal, on condition that the Respondent/Applicant deposits the judgment sum (Kshs.72,904,264.92) in an interest-earning bank account held jointly by Advocates for both parties within forty-five (45) days of the Ruling
  2. 2.Failure to comply with the conditional stay order, the stay order shall automatically lapse
  3. 3.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 13
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2024Rule 73(2)
  • Civil Procedure ActRules made thereunder
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6(1), (2) and (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Charles Mutethia Mutea & another – vs – Ibrahim Mutua
    [2009] eKLR

    Substantial loss occurs where the decree-holder cannot refund; evidential burden shifts to respondent on financial status

  • Grace Wangechi Gikuju & Another – vs – Samuel Kongori Njoki
    [2022] eKLR

    Burden on respondent to prove capacity to refund the decretal sum

  • National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd – vs – Aquinas Francis Wasike & Another

    Cited within Gikuju on the duty to prove refund capacity

  • Butt – vs – Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979] eKLR

    Stay discretion should be exercised to prevent a successful appeal being rendered nugatory

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Rule 73(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 read with Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gordon Otieno Odundo v Kenya Hospital Association T/A The Nairobi Hospital", Case Analysis (2026). Cause No. E548 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2674/eng@2026-09-25

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