SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Mose & 4 others (Suing in their Individual Capacities as Former Employees of the Respondent) v Foam Mattress Limited (Cause E086 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 499 (KLR) (25 February 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KEELRC 499 (KLR) Employment & Labour Relations Court
Read PDF
Court
Employment & Labour Relations Court
Case number
499
Citation
[2026] KEELRC 499 (KLR)
Decided
25 February 2026
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeApplication for Stay of ProceedingsPostureRespondent's Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending AppealCoramJK GAKERI, Ringera
The court denied the application for a stay of proceedings pending appeal.

Facts

The respondent sought an order for a stay of proceedings pending the hearing of an appeal against a ruling in ELRC No. E086/2025. The claimants opposed the application, arguing that a stay would cause prejudice and delay.

Issues

  • Whether to grant a stay of proceedings pending appeal
  • Whether the appeal would render the ruling nugatory

Reasoning

The court found that the application for a stay was a delaying tactic and that the appeal was not an arguable one. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and the scarcity of judicial time.

Outcome

Application for stay of proceedings denied

Orders

  • No stay of proceedings granted

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (2)
  • Global Tours and Travels Ltd HC Winding up Cause No. 43 of 2000
  • William Odhiambo Ramogi & 2 Others V Attorney General & 3 Others [2019] eKLR
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case