Wafula v Menengai Oil Refineries Limited (Cause E233 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 106 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court stopped enforcement of an employment judgment, but only because the losing party agreed to deposit the money awarded in a joint account.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for stay of execution pending appeal
- 2.Whether the Respondent/Applicant has proved/satisfied all the conditions set for the grant of stay
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the court to hear a stay of execution application pending appeal
The court has jurisdiction; rule 21(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 designates no specific court and only requires the applicant to declare any similar application filed elsewhere, so the application could properly be lodged in this court.
The court examined rule 21 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024. Rule 21(2) requires a stay application to be filed in the appeal file, but rule 21(1) does not designate a specific court; it only requires the applicant to declare, in the verifying affidavit, whether a similar application has been lodged in any other court. Relying on this structure, the court held that such an application may be filed in any court provided the declaration is made, and therefore the objection based on lack of jurisdiction failed. The Claimant/Respondent's further point that no memorandum of appeal had been served did not defeat jurisdiction.
Whether the conditions for grant of stay of execution under Order 42 rule 6(2) were satisfied
The conditions were satisfied: substantial loss was shown, the application was made without unreasonable delay, and security was offered by way of deposit of the decretal sum.
Applying Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court found that the applicant had shown the Claimant/Respondent had not disclosed a stable source of income and might be unable to refund the decretal sum if the appeal succeeded. The applicant offered to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account in the names of both advocates or in court, satisfying the security condition. The judgment was delivered on 24/02/2026 and the application/appeal lodged on 03/03/2026, showing no unreasonable delay. Stay was granted on those terms.
Legal principles established
#- An application for stay of execution pending appeal may be filed in any court provided that, under rule 21(1), the applicant declares in the supporting affidavit whether a similar application has been filed in any other court.
- An appeal does not operate as a stay of execution; a formal application for stay must be made to the court appealed from or the appellate court.
Court orders
#- 1.A stay of the judgement delivered on 24/02/2026 is granted pending the hearing of the appeal lodged before the Employment and Labour Relations Court
- 2.The decretal sum be deposited in a joint interest earning account in the names of both advocates
- 3.The deposit be made within 30 days from the date hereof
- 4.Costs to abide the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya; sections 3 and 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Rules 44 and 45 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, read with rule 21 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024 and Order 42 rule 6 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.
The court thus orders that a stay of the Judgement delivered on 24/02/2026 is granted pending the hearing of the appeal lodged before the Employment and Labour Relations Court on the condition that the decretal sum herein be deposited in a joint interest earning account in the names of both advocates.
Costs herein to abide the outcome of the appeal.
this court thus finds that such an application can be filed in any other court provided that the same is declared and this court thus has jurisdiction to hear the application.
No order for stay of execution shall be made under sub rule (1) unless— (a) The court is satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made and that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and (b) Such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#The caption/case number of the suit is missing from the judgment text; the judgment opens directly with the notice of motion.
The judgment labels the moving party 'Respondent/Applicant' and the opposing party 'Claimant/Respondent', which is atypical; the applicant is described as the party who lost the judgment and filed an appeal, yet is designated Respondent.
The judgment states the appeal is 'lodged before the Employment and labour relations Court' yet the decision itself appears to be rendered by a Senior Principal Magistrate at Nakuru, creating ambiguity as to the court appealed from and the hierarchy of the file.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wafula v Menengai Oil Refineries Limited (Cause E233 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/106/eng@2026-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.