Rhoda S Kiilu (Suing through her duly appointed Attorneys George Muinde Kiilu and Francis Mutua Kiilu) v Jiangxi Water and Hydropower Construction Kenya Limited
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ordered Kshs 94.6 million released to a landowner and allowed execution against her former advocate who fraudulently took Kshs 50 million.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the stay of execution pending appeal had lapsed
The stay was conditional on the pending appeal; the appeal having been dismissed on 10.07.2026, the stay stood extinguished
The stay granted on 13.07.2022 was conditioned on deposit of Kshs. 70,000,000 as security and subsisted only pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 10.07.2026. The event underpinning the stay having occurred, the stay was extinguished and the security's purpose had outlived itself.
Whether the applicants were entitled to release of the security
Yes; the balance of Kshs. 94,615,000 remaining in court was releasable to the decree holder's attorneys
Upon determination of the appeal, monies deposited as security become part of the decretal sum payable to the decree holder. Of the total Kshs. 144,615,000 deposited (70,000,000 on 28.07.2022 and 74,615,000 on 23.05.2023), Kshs. 50,000,000 had been fraudulently disbursed to the former advocate, leaving Kshs. 94,615,000 in court for release.
Recovery of the fraudulently withdrawn Kshs. 50,000,000 from the former advocate
Mr. John Muthomi, though not a party, is liable to execution as an officer of the court and agent in breach of fiduciary duty
The ruling of 05.02.2026 found the release was procured by deceit, misrepresentation and fraud and ordered restitution within 45 days, which was not complied with. Under Sections 55 and 56 of the Advocates Act the advocate is an officer of the court bound by its orders, and as the plaintiff's agent he breached fiduciary obligations; execution may issue against him.
Appropriate reliefs on the balance of the decree
The entire decretal sum having been deposited, only interest and taxed costs remained outstanding; liberty to execute granted accordingly
The record showed the judgment debtor deposited the full Kshs. 144,615,000 decretal sum. What remained outstanding was interest decreed at court rates, reckoned from the date of judgment, and costs yet to be taxed. The applicants were granted liberty to pursue interest as stipulated in the judgment and to tax costs, subject to Order 22 Rule 18.
Legal principles established
#- A conditional stay of execution pending appeal lapses upon determination of the appeal, and security deposited as a condition of stay becomes available for appropriation towards the decree
- Court orders must be obeyed; no person, including an advocate, is above the law
- An advocate who obtains release of court-held funds by fraud and fails to restore them as ordered is liable to execution to recover the monies
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 23.07.2026 allowed on terms
- 2.The order of stay of execution granted on 13.07.2022 and modified on 12.04.2023 discharged/varied
- 3.The stay of execution declared to have been extinguished
- 4.Deputy Registrar ordered to release to the applicants on behalf of the Plaintiff Kshs. 94,615,000 being the balance of the security plus subsequent monies deposited by the defendant
- 5.Release to be undertaken without undue delay, subject to established processing and accounting procedures
- 6.Applicants at liberty to commence execution proceedings against the judgment debtor to recover computed interest and taxed costs
- 7.Applicants at liberty to take out execution proceedings against Mr. John Muthomi, by attachment of his properties or warrants of arrest, to recover the Kshs. 50,000,000 he failed to restitute
- 8.Applicants at liberty to file and tax the costs of the suit
- 9.No orders as to costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 26, 27, 34, 38 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 13(7) and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Orders 22, 42 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Articles 48, 50(1), 159(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rhoda S Kiilu (Suing through her duly appointed Attorneys George Muinde Kiilu and Francis Mutua Kiilu) v Jiangxi Water and Hydropower Construction Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 34 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6097/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.