James Mulinge v Freight Wings Ltd & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 11 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed an objection to attached property because conflicting affidavits showed collusion, and only one claimed item, a motor vehicle, was proved to be owned by the objectors.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether perjury was committed in the affidavits supporting the objection
Yes - the affidavits of Ms Okallo bear conflicting information as to her positions with the Respondent and the Objectors, and either affidavit must be false; this amounts to collusion between the Respondent and Objectors to defeat the course of justice
Ms Okallo swore as Human Resource Manager of the Respondent in one affidavit and as Group Human Resource Director of the 1st Objector in another, with no explanation of the change. Mr Osodo's supporting affidavit relied on her authority. The court found the contradictions material, made knowingly, constituting perjury and abuse of process warranting dismissal of the application.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to address perjury within objection proceedings
Yes - as a superior court of record, the court has inherent powers to deal with false affidavits; reliance on the former requirement of leave negates constitutional principles on access to justice
Counsel for the Objectors argued the court lacked jurisdiction under section 12 of the ELRC Act. The court held the old English-based leave requirement no longer applied and that article 48 on access to justice, coupled with inherent powers of a superior court of record, permits the court to punish false affidavits in civil and employment matters.
Whether the proclaimed goods belong to the Objectors
Only the motor vehicle KAM 599X was proved to have an interest conferred between the Objectors; ownership of all other proclaimed items was not proved
The Objectors admitted the inter se transaction over KAM 599X and produced ownership documents, and the Respondent did not participate to deny it. For the remaining goods, no search documents, receipts or ownership evidence were produced, so the attachment stood except as regards the vehicle.
Who should bear the costs of the objection and the auctioneers
The Respondent, as non-payment of the decretal sum occasioned the proclamation and the Objectors' proceedings, and the group operates as VP Group when convenient
The Respondent had committed by letter dated 22nd July 2016 to settle the decretal sum but failed to pay or attend. The court found the group-of-companies manoeuvring to be an effort to circumvent justice and an abuse of process, making the Respondent liable for all attendant costs.
Legal principles established
#- Where a superior court finds a party has knowingly sworn a false affidavit, the party commits perjury which also amounts to an abuse of court process, and the court has inherent power to punish without requiring prior leave
- The elements of perjury are: a lawfully sworn witness, in judicial proceedings, deliberately making a material statement which is false, knowing it to be false
- An objector in execution proceedings must prove ownership of the proclaimed goods
Court orders
#- 1.The Objectors' application dated 28th July 2016 is dismissed
- 2.Motor vehicle registration No. KAM 599X shall be removed from the proclaimed goods and schedule of the interested party dated 13th April 2016
- 3.The Respondent shall meet all costs herein inclusive of costs incurred by the Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; inherent powers of a superior court of record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mwang v Indigo Universe Supply Limited & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7212 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7212 (KLR)9 Oct 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Mulinge v Freight Wings Ltd & 3 others [2016] KEELRC 11 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Application dated 28th July 2016 (Objection Proceedings). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/11/eng@2016-10-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.