Lavington Security Ltd v Cheruyiot (Appeal E015 of 2026) [2026] KEELRC 2197 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling)

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR** **RELATIONS COURT AT NAKURU** **APPEAL NUMBER E015 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** LAVINGTON SECURITY LIMITED........................................................... APPELLANT **AND** WESLEY CHERUYIOT .........................................................................RESPONDENT **RULING** 1. The Appellant seeks an order of stay of execution of Judgment delivered by the Trial Court, dated 12th February 2026, pending hearing and determination of the Appeal. 2. The application is dated 15 April 2026, supported by the affidavit of Respondent’s human resource manager Samuel Banda, sworn on 15th April 2026. 3. An interim order of stay of execution issued on the same date. 4. Banda explains that the Appellant filed the Appeal on 26th February 2026. The Respondent extracted decree and warrants of execution against the Appellant at the Trial Court, on 3rd March 2026. 5. The Appeal raises arguable issues, in particular, the Appellant’s right to a fair hearing. The Appeal has been presented without delay. The Appellant is ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court, on grant of the order. 6. The Respondent opposes the application, through his affidavit, sworn on 21st April 2026. He states that the application is misconceived. The Appellant has not demonstrated that it would suffer substantial loss, if execution proceeds. He urges the Court to balance the rights of the Parties, by directing that he is paid half the decretal sum, while the other half is deposited in Court. The Memorandum of Appeal does not raise arguable grounds. 7. Parties agreed that the application is considered and determined on the basis of their affidavits and submissions on record. The application was last mentioned on 12th May 2026, when the Parties confirmed filing and exchange of their submissions. **The Court Finds**: - 1. The Appellant has not included a copy of the Judgment and Decree subject matter of the Appeal, in its application. 2. The supporting affidavit refers to one annexure, a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal, marked as ‘LAV 1.’ 3. There is no copy of the Judgment, which would assist the Court in determining if there is an arguable Appeal. 4. The Memorandum of Appeal, without a copy of the Judgment, contains mere opinion of the Appellant, which is insufficient in assessing arguability of the Appeal. 5. The Appellant does not disclose if it has applied for a copy of the Judgment and Proceedings, and when that application was made. 6. Copies of warrants of attachment and proclamation issued at the Trial Court have been placed in the record, but not as annexures to the supporting affidavit. 7. Howsoever placed, the warrants and proclamation only show that execution proceedings have been initiated at the Trial Court, but do not assist the Court in establishing what was said by the Trial Court in its Judgment, and whether there is an arguable Appeal. The application is not well-founded. **IT IS ORDERED:** - 1. **The application filed by the Appellant dated 15th April 2026 is declined.** 2. **No order on the costs.** Dated, signed and delivered electronically at Nakuru, under Rule 68[5] of the E&LRC [Procedure] Rules, 2024, this 30th July 2026. James Rika Judge