https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1384

Kenya Chemical Workers Union v Agri Seeds Company (K) Limited (Cause E040 of 2022) [2026] KEELRC 1384 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1384 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E040 of 2022 CN Baari, J May 21, 2026 Between Kenya Chemical Workers Union Claimant and Agri Seeds Company (K) Limited Respondent Ruling 1.For determination is the Claimant’s Motion application dated 3rd November, 2025, brought pursuant to Rule 69 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Rules 2024, Section 3 of the Employment and Labor Relations Court Act, 2011, and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The Applicant seeks orders That: -i.Spentii.This Honourable Court be pleased to adopt the computed decretal sum of Kenya Shillings Six Million, Four Hundred and Eight Thousand (Kshs.6,408,000/=) as the accurate quantification of the Judgment delivered on 23rd January, 2025.iii.The costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is supported by grounds on the face of the motion and the affidavit of Peter Ouko Onyango sworn on 3rd November, 2025. The crux of the Motion is that this Court (differently constituted) delivered a final Judgment on 23rd January 2025, conclusively determining the parties’ rights by awarding specific and quantified compensation to fifty-five (55) grievants based on their respective lengths of service. 3.It avers further that in compliance with the Judgment, the Claimant/Applicant undertook a detailed computation process, establishing the total decretal amount payable to the grievants at Kshs. 6,408,000/=. 4.It is its case that the grievants, having successfully vindicated their rights, now hold a legitimate expectation to promptly enjoy the fruits of the Judgment, arguing that there is an urgent need for the Court to formally adopt the computed sum of Kshs. 6,408,000/= so as to give full and practical effect to the Judgment rendered on 23rd January 2025. 5.The Respondent opposed the application vide a Replying affidavit sworn by one Wellington Wasike on 16th January, 2026. 6.The Respondent states that the Court directed it to compute the damages payable to the Claimants in accordance with the Judgment and file the computation within 30 days, and that in compliance with the orders, the Claimant prepared and shared its computation with the Respondent’s advocates on 27th February 2025, while it also filed its own computation through the Affidavit of Beverly Ayuma sworn on 17th March 2025. 7.The Respondent further avers that upon reviewing the Claimant’s computation, it raised several objections, firstly, contending that the Claimants were paid at a daily wage rate of Kshs. 600 for a five-day workweek, and therefore the correct monthly wage should be Kshs. 13,200 based on 22 working days, rather than Kshs. 18,000 calculated on 30 days. 8.The states that secondly, it noted that Derrick Omari, listed as Claimant No. 15, was the same individual as Derrick Akeri Omari, listed as Employee No. 29, both sharing the same ID number. Thirdly, the Respondent disputed the years of service indicated for certain employees, namely Jairus Savai and David Otieno Orwa, whose service was stated as 8 years instead of 7 years, and Brian Kiprop Chelobe, whose service was stated as 7 years instead of 5 years. 9.The Respondent, lastly, points out ambiguity in the Judgment regarding employees with 8 years of service, arguing that compensation should be calculated at 8 months’ salary rather than the 10 months’ salary applied by the Claimant. 10.The Respondent maintains that, in light of the foregoing observations, the computation prepared by the Claimant is inaccurate. It further states that, being dissatisfied with the Judgment, it filed Civil Appeal No. 994 of 2025, Agri Seeds Co. (K) Limited v Kenya Chemical Workers Union, which is currently pending hearing and determination before the Court of Appeal. 11.It is the Respondent’s position that by an application dated 21st February 2025, it sought orders for stay of execution of the Judgment delivered on 23rd January 2025 pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, and that in a Ruling delivered on 4th July 2025, the Court granted a stay of execution of the Judgment and any resultant decree pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. 12.It avers that the Court further ordered the Respondent to deposit Kshs. 3,500,000 in Court within 30 days, failing which the Claimant would be at liberty to execute. 13.The Respondent avers, on the advice of its advocates, that the present application amounts to an abuse of the Court process for several reasons. Firstly, it contends that the stay of execution orders issued by the Court effectively suspended all execution proceedings, including the quantification and payment of the decretal sum, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. 14.Secondly, the Respondent argues that both parties have already filed their respective computations pursuant to the directions contained in the Judgment delivered on 23rd January 2025, but upon review, the computations differ substantially both in principle and in the final sums proposed, which discrepancies are significant demonstrate that the matter remains highly contested and cannot be resolved through the simple adoption of one party’s computations without a full interrogation by the Court. 15.Thirdly, the Respondent maintains that proceeding with the application for computation at this stage would constitute a misuse of the Court process and an unnecessary expenditure of judicial time and resources. In its view, the prudent and efficient course is to await the determination of the pending appeal, whose outcome may either render the computation exercise unnecessary or substantially alter its scope. 16.The Respondent therefore urges the Court, in the interests of justice, judicial economy, and compliance with its own orders, to dismiss the Claimant’s application dated 3rd November 2025 with costs. 17.Parties urged the Motion by way of written submissions, which have been duly considered. Determination 18.I have carefully considered the application by the Claimant, the grounds in support, the affidavits on record, and the rival submissions by the parties. The issue falling for determination is whether this Court should adopt the Claimant’s computation of the decretal sum at Kshs.6,408,000/= as the accurate quantification of the Judgment delivered on 23rd January 2025. 19.It is not in dispute that this Court (differently constituted) delivered Judgment on 23rd January 2025 in favour of grievants that are represented by the Claimant, and further directed the parties to compute the damages payable in accordance with the terms of the Judgment. It is equally not disputed that both parties subsequently filed separate computations pursuant to those directions. 20.The Court notes that the Respondent has raised substantive objections to the Claimant’s computation, which objections relate to the applicable monthly wage for purposes of computation, an alleged duplication of one grievant’s particulars, disputed years of service for certain employees, and the proper interpretation of the Judgment regarding the number of months payable to employees with eight years of service. 21.It is therefore evident that the Respondent contests both the principles applied and the final figures proposed by the Claimant. 22.Further, it is common ground that the Respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 994 of 2025, Agri Seeds Co. (K) Limited v Kenya Chemical Workers Union, challenging the Judgment of this Court, and in a Ruling delivered on 4th July 2025, this Court granted an order of stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal upon conditions, including the deposit of Kshs. 3,500,000/= in Court. 23.The law regarding stay of execution pending appeal is settled. Under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a stay order suspends the enforcement of a decree pending appeal. 24.This court, however, notes that the present application is not strictly an execution process, but one seeking adoption of a computation said to arise from the impugned Judgment. The Court therefore agrees with the principle that mere pendency of an appeal does not automatically bar all post judgment processes unless expressly stayed. Courts have distinguished between execution proceedings and ancillary processes such as taxation or ascertainment of sums payable. In John Mburu v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited [2016] eKLR, the Court held that taxation merely determines the amount payable and is distinguishable from execution proceedings. 25.Having said that, the Court must consider the peculiar circumstances of this matter. The computations filed by the parties differ materially. The dispute is not merely arithmetical, it goes to the underlying basis of computation, including the applicable monthly wage, duration of service, and interpretation of the Judgment itself. Such contested issues cannot, in my view, be resolved through a blanket adoption of one party’s figures without a substantive interrogation of the competing computations and supporting records. 26.The Court further notes that the Respondent’s appeal directly challenges the Judgment upon which the computations are founded. While the stay granted did not expressly stay further proceedings, the Court must nonetheless exercise its discretion judiciously and in a manner that avoids rendering the pending appeal nugatory or occasioning conflicting outcomes. 27.The Court is guided by the principle that judicial discretion must be exercised in a manner that facilitates the just, proportionate, and efficient disposal of disputes under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, as read together with Article 159 of the Constitution. 28.In the circumstances of this case, proceeding to conclusively adopt one contested computation while an appeal is pending and while substantial disputes remain unresolved would not advance those objectives. 29.I therefore find and hold that the Claimant has not laid sufficient basis for this Court to adopt its computation of Kshs. 6,408,000/= as the definitive decretal sum at this stage. The appropriate course in my considered opinion is to await the determination of the pending appeal or such further directions as may thereafter be necessary regarding reconciliation and verification of the computations filed by the parties. 30.Accordingly, the Claimant’s Motion application dated 3rd November 2025 is hereby declined. 31.I make no orders on costs. 32.Orders accordingly. SIGNED, DELIVERED, AND DATED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.C. N. BAARIJUDGEAppearance:Mr. Mutongoi present for the Claimant/ApplicantMs. Anne Kadima present for the RespondentMs. Esther S – C/A