Shikopo v Menengai Oil Refineries Ltd (Cause E232 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 107 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court allowed an employer to pause enforcing a judgment until its appeal is heard, provided it deposits the full award in a joint interest-earning account within 30 days.
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 hear and determine the application for stay of execution pending appeal
- 2.Whether the Respondent/Applicant has proved/satisfied all conditions set for grant of stay
- 3.Whether the judgment should be reviewed to correct errors apparent on the record (cause number and Claimant's name)
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the trial court to hear an application for stay of execution pending appeal
The court has jurisdiction because rule 21(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024 does not specify a particular court; it only requires an applicant to declare a similar application filed in any other court.
Rule 21(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 provides that an application for stay of execution pending appeal shall be filed in the appeal file. However, rule 21(1) merely requires an applicant to declare in the supporting affidavit whether a similar application has been filed in any other court. The court construed this to mean such an application may be lodged in any court so long as it is declared, thereby conferring jurisdiction on itself notwithstanding the Claimant's functus officio objection under section 21(2).
Conditions for grant of stay of execution pending appeal
The Applicant satisfied the conditions under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules: the application was made without unreasonable delay (filed seven days after judgment), substantial loss was not controverted, and security was offered.
The court applied Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the principles in Carter and Sons Ltd v Deposit Protection Fund Board, Butt v Rental Restriction Tribunal and Kenya Shell Ltd v Benjamin Karuga Kibiru, that stay is discretionary, must not render an appeal nugatory, and that substantial loss is the cornerstone. Judgment was delivered on 24/02/2026 and the application filed on 03/03/2026, showing no unreasonable delay; the averment of difficulty in recovering the decretal sum was not controverted and security by deposit was offered.
Review of judgment to correct errors apparent on the face of the record
The review was unopposed and met the threshold under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, being an error apparent on the face of the record (wrong cause number and wrong Claimant's name, confused with a sister file).
The judgment had recorded the cause number as E233 of 2024 instead of E232 of 2024 and the Claimant's name as Bramwell Matakala Wafula instead of Kennedy Wafula Shikipo, apparently confused with a sister file, Nakuru Cmelrc No. 233 of 2024, Bramwel Matakala Wafula vrs Menengai Refineries Limited. The Claimant did not oppose the review. The court agreed that the application met the threshold under Rule 74 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, particularly the ground of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Legal principles established
#- An application for stay of execution pending appeal may be filed in any court provided that any similar application filed in another court is declared in the supporting affidavit, under rule 21(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024.
Court orders
#- 1.The court reviewed its judgment to correct the cause number to read E232 of 2024 instead of 233 of 2024
- 2.The court reviewed its judgment to correct the name of the Claimant to read Kennedy Likovelo Shikopo instead of Bramwell Matakala Eafula
- 3.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 24/02/2026 together with any consequential decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
- 4.The Applicant to deposit security in the form of the decretal sum in an interest-earning joint account in the names of counsel for the parties within 30 days
- 5.In default of compliance with the security order, the stay orders to automatically lapse
- 6.Costs of the application to abide with the outcome of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 21(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 and Order 42 rule 6(2) 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.
a. This Honorable Court hereby reviews its judgment herein to correct the errors apparent on the record relating to the cause number (to read E232 OF 2024 instead of 233 of 2024) and the name of the Claimant (to read Kennedy Likovelo Shikopo instead of Bramwell Matakala Eafula).
b. There shall be a stay of execution of the Judgment delivered on 24/02/2026 together with any consequential decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal lodged herein.
c. The Applicant shall deposit security in the form of the decretal sum herein in an interest earning joint account in the names of counsel for the parties within 30 days from the date hereof.
e. Costs of the application shall abide with 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
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the corrected Claimant's name: the judgment at paragraph 4 records the error as the Claimant being 'Bramwell Matakala Wafula instead of Kennedy Wafula Shikipo', while the final order corrects the name to 'Kennedy Likovelo Shikopo instead of Bramwell Matakala Eafula' - three different renderings of the Claimant's name appear.
The party designation is anomalous: the applicant for stay is styled 'Respondent/Applicant', described as the employer moving the court against a judgment entered in favour of the Claimant/Respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Shikopo v Menengai Oil Refineries Ltd (Cause E232 of 2024) [2026] KEMC 107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Employment Cause Number E232 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2026/107/eng@2026-05-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.