Jasper Nyaboga v Party of National Unity [2014] KEELRC 592 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Interpretation of the order of 9th December 2013 releasing the attached monies to 'the Claimant'
The reference to the Claimant meant the Claimant's Advocates, since the application sought release to Mohammed Muigui Advocates and a represented party communicates with the Court through Advocates.
Prayer No. 3 of the application dated 6th August 2013 expressly sought that monies be released to the Claimant's Advocates to satisfy the decretal debt. Since the Claimant was represented, all communication and payments flow through the Advocates, so the subsequent order referencing the Claimant could only sensibly mean the Advocates. The Advocates had no reason to release the money to the client, as the orders were provisional security, not a final award.
Nature of the garnishee monies obtained before hearing
The monies are provisional security for terminal benefits or compensation that may be awarded after full hearing, not satisfaction of the claim.
The Claimant had not obtained any award from the Court. The garnishee order was issued as security to enable access to terminal benefits and/or compensation pending finalisation of the hearing. Because the Respondent had failed to deposit security in Court when given the opportunity, execution issued in default, and there was no basis to redirect the monies to Court deposit or joint names of Advocates.
Whether the Respondent's application dated 9th January 2014 was a review or a request for clarification
It was properly treated as seeking clarification of the orders of 9th December 2013, which clarification the Court provided in the ruling.
The Respondent's own prayer presumed the Claimant may already have received the money, but there was no evidence the Advocates released it to the Claimant. Given the ambiguity in order No. 2, the application was better characterised as seeking clarification rather than reviewal of an established position, and the Court supplied that clarification by directing retention by the Advocates.
Legal principles established
#- Proceeds of pre-hearing execution such as a garnishee order made absolute serve only as security pending full hearing, and are not a settlement of the substantive dispute.
- Money held under a provisional pre-hearing order in favour of a represented party should be retained by that party's Advocates, not paid to the party in person.
Court orders
#- 1.The sum of Kshs.4,636,625 shall be retained by the Claimant's Advocate as security for the Claimant's Gratuity Payment
- 2.The Claimant's Advocates to ensure the said money is in their Advocate-Client Account before any further step can be taken in prosecution of the Claim
- 3.No order on the costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over employment claim and incidental garnishee execution proceedings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jasper Nyaboga v Party of National Unity [2014] KEELRC 592 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Cause No 951 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2014/592/eng@2014-03-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.