https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1550

Karanja v Lake Trans Logistics Limited (Miscellaneous Application E297 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1550 (KLR) (9 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1550 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Miscellaneous Application E297 of 2025 BOM Manani, J June 9, 2026 Between Henry Gaturu Karanja Applicant and Lake Trans Logistics Limited Respondent Ruling 1.On 17th December 2024, the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Services awarded the Applicant the sum of Ksh. 1,929,333.33 as compensation for the injury he suffered whilst in the Respondent’s employment. By an application dated 19th August 2025, the Applicant moved the court for judgment for the aforesaid amount. 2.Vide the ruling dated 9th February 2026, the court adopted the award as a judgment of the court. It also awarded the Applicant interest on the amount in the award and costs of the application. Subsequently on 16th April 2026, the Taxing Master of the court assessed the costs due to the Applicant at Ksh. 171,921.67. 3.Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Respondent has moved the Court of Appeal to challenge the decision of the court. It has filed Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 106 of 2026 seeking leave of that court to lodge an appeal against the impugned decision out of time. 4.The Respondent has now moved this court through the application dated 16th April 2026 seeking the following orders:-a.Spent.b.Spent.c.That there be an order for stay of execution of the ruling dated 9th February 2026 and any subsequent proceedings in ELRC MISC E297/2025 pending the hearing and determination of the application dated 2nd March 2026 in COAAPPL. No. 106 of 2026 for leave to appeal out of time and stay of execution.d.That costs of the application be provided for.e.That the court grants any other orders it deems fit. 5.The application is supported by the grounds on the face thereof and the affidavit of one Gurram Venkata Rama Rao (the affiant).The affiant avers that on 9th February 2026, the court adopted the Director’s award as its judgment with interest on the amount at the rate of 14% per annum with effect from 17th July 2024. He contends that the Respondent is aggrieved by the decision and intends to appeal against it. 6.The affiant avers that the Respondent has already lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time before the Court of Appeal. However, he avers that efforts to set down the aforesaid application have not borne fruit. 7.The affiant avers that the Applicant has moved to execute the decree which emanated from the impugned ruling. He contends that if the execution process is allowed to proceed to conclusion, the Respondent will suffer irreparable loss. 8.The affiant asserts that the Respondent has a meritorious appeal. As such, he contends that it is only fair that the court stays execution of the decree in order not to render the appeal nugatory. 9.The Applicant has opposed the application for stay of execution pending appeal. He contends that the application is frivolous and filed solely for purposes of delaying him from enjoying the fruits of his judgment. 10.The Applicant avers that the court has not, in any event, issued warrants of attachment and sale of the Respondent’s assets. As such, he contends that the application for stay of execution is premature. 11.The Applicant avers that, as a matter of fact, there is no appeal which the Respondent has lodged to entitle it to apply for stay of execution. Further, he contends that the proposed appeal is, in any event not merited. 12.The Applicant contends that the Respondent was not entitled to challenge the quantum of the Director’s award in the instant proceedings since they were instituted solely for purposes of adopting the award. He avers that parties to such proceeding are not entitled to raise any substantive issues outside the request for adoption of the award. 13.The Applicant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated that it will suffer loss if the execution process is allowed to proceed. He further alleges that the Respondent has not demonstrated that he is incapable of refunding the decretal sum should the proposed appeal succeed. 14.The Applicant further contends that the Respondent filed the application for stay of execution after inordinate delay (90 days after the impugned decision). He also contends that the Respondent has not offered security for performance of the decree. As such, he avers that the instant application is an abuse of the court process. 15.Besides the aforesaid application, the Applicant filed another application dated 24th April 2026 seeking the following orders:-a.That the application dated 16th April 2026 be dismissed with costs.b.That in the alternative, if the court is inclined to grant an order for stay of execution pending appeal, it should do so on condition that the Respondent is ordered to deposit the decretal sum of Ksh. 1,929,333.33 in a joint interest earning account in the names of the advocates on record for the parties within 7 days of the order failing which, execution should proceed. 16.The application is supported by the grounds appearing on the face thereof and the affidavit of the Applicant. The Applicant contends that he has a valid decree which he is entitled to enforce in order to enjoy the fruits of litigation. He reiterates his contention that the Respondent has not demonstrated that it will suffer loss if the execution process is allowed to proceed. 17.The Applicant asserts that the Respondent’s attempt to stay execution is only intended to delay finalization of the matter. He asserts that the Respondent has not demonstrated that he is a man of straw and incapable of refunding the decretal sum should the proposed appeal succeed. 18.The Respondent has opposed the motion dated 24th April 2026. It essentially reiterates the averments it made in respect of the earlier application to support its position. 19.In addition, the Respondent avers that it has financial challenges which will make it difficult to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account. It contends that its insurer declined to accept responsibility for the decretal sum thus leaving it with the burden of addressing the matter. Analysis 20.I have considered the two applications and the submissions by the parties. The central issue in both applications is whether the court should grant the Respondent stay of execution of the impugned decree pending prosecution of the application before the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time. 21.The applicable law on stay of execution pending appeal is encapsulated in Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The position in law is that an appeal against a decision does not operate as an automatic stay of enforcement of the decision. As such, a party who wishes to stay such decision must move the court for an order in that regard. 22.Stay of execution pending appeal can only be granted if the conditions in rule 6 of the aforesaid Order are satisfied. The applicant must demonstrate that: he will suffer substantial loss if the stay order is not granted; the application for stay of execution was filed without unreasonable delay; he is ready to provide security for the performance of the decree. 23.For purposes of an application for stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal, the law requires that the applicant demonstrates that he has lodged a Notice of Appeal. This requirement is self-evidence from Order 42 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides as follows:-‘’For the purposes of this rule an appeal to the Court of Appeal shall be deemed to have been filed when under the Rules of that Court notice of appeal has been given.’’ 24.The court will not comment on the merits of the proposed appeal to the Court of Appeal since this is not one of the conditions for grant of an order for stay of execution under Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules. However, the court notes that the Respondent has indeed lodged a Notice of Appeal against the impugned decision thus satisfying the requirement under rule 4 of the aforesaid Order. 25.The application for stay of execution pending the intended appeal was filed on 18th April 2026. This was approximately two months after the impugned ruling of the court was delivered. 26.The Respondent has indicated that it first approached the Court of Appeal in early March 2026 for stay of execution. However, it avers that the said court is yet to consider the application. 27.From the foregoing, it is apparent that the Respondent sought stay before the Court of Appeal hardly one month after delivery of the impugned ruling. It (the Respondent) only came back to this court with a similar request after it noticed that processing of the motion before the Court of Appeal had delayed. 28.In the court’s view, the Respondent has given a reasonable explanation for the apparent delay in presenting the present application. In the premises, the court is satisfied that the application was not filed after unreasonable delay. 29.The Respondent contends that this court did not take into account the amount which it had allegedly paid to the Applicant whilst adopting the Director’s award. Although this may be contested, it raises genuine concerns regarding the possibility of the Respondent suffering irreparable loss if it is compelled to remit to the Applicant the entire decretal sum before the proposed appeal is determined. 30.The Applicant did not file an affidavit of means to demonstrate that he has the ability to refund the decretal sum in the event that the appeal succeeds after he has executed for the amount. Only he can speak to his means. As such and in terms of section 112 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof rested on him to discount the Respondent’s assertion that he has no means to refund the decretal sum should the appeal succeed. Having regard to the foregoing, the court is satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated that it is likely to suffer irreparable loss should the appeal succeed after the decretal sum has been paid out. 31.Apart from the foregoing, the law obligates the Respondent to provide security for the performance of the disputed decree before an order for stay of execution can be granted. As such, it (the Respondent) cannot evade this obligation by pleading incapacity to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest earning account in the names of the lawyers on record. The Respondent’s offer to deposit Ksh. 500,000 as security for the performance of the decree is inadequate given that the decretal sum is more than double the sum offered as security. Determination 32.The upshot is that the court grants the Respondent’s prayer for stay of execution of the decree herein pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal subject to the Respondent depositing the entire decretal sum in a joint interest earning account in the names of the advocates on record for the parties within 30 days of this order. 33.In default of compliance with the aforesaid condition, the order for stay of execution granted herein shall automatically lapse with the consequence that the Applicant shall be at liberty to execute for the decretal sum. 34.Each party to bear own costs of the respective applications. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026B. O. M. MANANIJUDGEIn the presence of:…………….for the Applicant…………….for the RespondentOrderIn light of the directions issued on 12th July 2022 by her Ladyship, the Chief Justice with respect to online court proceedings, this decision has been delivered to the parties online with their consent, the parties having waived compliance with Rule 28 (3) of the ELRC Procedure Rules which requires that all judgments and rulings shall be dated, signed and delivered in the open court.