https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1936

Anytime Company Limited v Anjiru (Appeal E015 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 1936 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1936 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret Appeal E015 of 2026 MA Onyango, J July 2, 2026 Between Anytime Company Limited Appellant and Stephen Nandwa Anjiru Respondent Ruling 1.The application before me for determination is dated 11th February, 2026 and has been brought by the Appellant/Applicant under the provisions of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Order 42 Rule 6; Order 50 Rule 6; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; and sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all enabling provisions of the law. The Appellant/Applicant seeks orders that:a.Spent.b.Spent.c.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a stay of execution of the whole Judgement delivered on the 28th day of January, 2026 pending the hearing and determination of the Intended Appeal.d.That this Honourable Court do issue any other order that it may deem just and fit to issue.e.The costs of this Application be provided for 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of Steve Ndalo, the Applicant’s Human Resource Manager sworn on 10th February, 2026. 3.The grounds upon which the application is made are contained at the foot of the application as reiterated and expounded in the supporting affidavit as follows:a.The Learned Magistrate, the Honourable Daniel Sitati Sifuma (SRM) delivered Judgement in MCELRC Case No. E048 of 2025 (Stephen Nandwa Anjiru versus Anytime Company Limited).b.The Respondent has commenced execution by filing a bill of costs dated the 28th January,2026.c.The Respondent shall proceed to execute to the detriment of the Applicant herein who is dissatisfied with the decision by the Honorable Court and seeks to appeal against the judgement of the Honorable Court.d.It is on this basis that the Applicant herein is apprehensive that unless this Honorable Court urgently intervenes and unless this Application is urgently heard, the intended Appeal runs the risk of being rendered otiose and the Applicant will be highly prejudiced should the Respondent proceed to enforce the judgment.e.This Application has been brought without inordinate delay.f.The Applicant is ready and willing to abide by any orders that this Court may impose.g.There shall be no prejudice occasioned to the Respondent if this Application is allowed.h.It is in the interest of justice that this Application is certified urgent and the orders prayed for issued in the first instance. 4.The Respondent Stephen Nandwa Anjiru opposed the application through his replying affidavit sworn on 9th April, 2026 in which he deposes that he does not oppose the application but urged the court to allow the same conditionally as it is a decree on a liquidated sum. He prays that half of the decretal sum be paid to him and the other half be deposited into an interest earning account pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Further that should the Applicant default the stay should automatically lapse. 5.He states that he will be in a position to refund the portion of the decretal sum paid to him should the appeal be successful. 6.the Respondent further deposes that the Applicant has not demonstrated the prejudice it would suffer should stay not be granted. That a litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his judgement and that the continued stay will prejudice him. 7.In the Respondent’s opinion, the appeal is frivolous and has no chances of succeeding. 8.The application was disposed of by way of written submissions which both parties filed and exchanged. The submissions of the Applicant are dated 27th April, 2026 while the submissions of the Respondent are also dated 4th May, 2026. 9.I have considered the application and the submissions of the parties. In view of the fact that the Respondent is not opposed to the application save for the condition that half of decretal sum be released to him and that should the Applicant default the stay should automatically lapse, the only issue for determination is whether the Applicant should pay half of the decretal sum to the Respondent and deposit the balance in an interest earning account in the names of counsel for the parties. 10.Order 42 rule 6(2) of Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows: -“(2)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.” 11.It is the view of the court that the Respondent has not justified his prayer that 50% of the decretal sum should be paid to him. He did not state the source of funds at his disposal for use in refunding the half of decretal sum that he seeks to be released to him should the appeal succeed. In National Industrial Credit Bank Limited v Aquinas Francis Wasike & Another [2006] eKLR the court held that where an Applicant expresses a reasonable apprehension that a Respondent may be unable to refund the decretal sum, the evidential burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate his or her financial capability. The Applicant's apprehension therefore remains unchallenged. 12.Further, it is not possible at this juncture for the court to determine whether or not the appeal will succeed or fail or only partially succeed. The Applicant has expressed that conceding to the payment of half the decretal sum may indicate that it concedes to the judgment and decree against the whole of which it has appealed. 13.The purpose of an order for stay is to preserve the subject matter of the appeal. Under Order 42 rule 6(2) of Civil Procedure Rules, the Applicant is required to provide “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.” 14.For the foregoing reasons, the application dated 11th February, 2025 is hereby allowed in terms of prayer (3) thereof, on condition that the Applicant shall deposit the entire decretal sum in an interest bearing account in the names of counsel for both parties within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. 15.Failure to comply with the above condition shall automatically render the stay orders vacated and the Respondent shall be at liberty to execute. 16.The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal. DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED ON THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026.M. ONYANGOJUDGE