Rahab Wothaya Esiromo & 7 others v Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 168 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court refused to stop auctioneers from attaching Shield Assurance's property, confirming the company remained liable for the judgment debt.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment and the review ruling of 19th March 2014 absolved the 2nd respondent from the judgment debt
They did not; the judge only absolved the 2nd respondent from payment of costs in respect of pension benefits already met by Roberts Insurance Brokers, and any balance remains recoverable from the 1st and 2nd respondents
The court perused the judgment of Maureen Onyango J at page 10 and her review ruling of 19th March 2014. The judgment had stated the claim was overtaken by events only as regards pension benefits met by Roberts Insurance Brokers, and that no orders for costs were made in respect of the 2nd respondent. On review, the judge clarified that the 2nd respondent, having been a party and having failed in its application to be released from the case, remains liable for the debt and costs.
Whether the warrant of attachment should be set aside for want of a judgment against the applicant
The application lacks merit because a judgment exists against the 2nd respondent and the debt was not extinguished
The applicant's sole ground was that no judgment existed against it. The court found, on reading the judgment and the review ruling, that the 2nd respondent was not released from the judgment debt in its entirety and that any ambiguity had been clarified in the ruling of 19th March 2014. Execution against its property therefore stood on a valid decree and the application was dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A party that was joined to a claim and whose application to be released from the case failed remains liable for the judgment debt and costs despite ambiguous wording in the judgment, which may be clarified on review.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated and filed on 24th March 2016 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to be met by the 2nd respondent/applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (execution of its own decree)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rahab Wothaya Esiromo & 7 others v Blue Shield Insurance Company Limited & 2 others [2016] KEELRC 168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Cause No 1488 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2016/168/eng@2016-12-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.