Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment extract· [2020] KEELRC 768 (KLR)

Danson Mbubi Mutabi v Konza Ranching & Farming Co-operative Society Limited [2020] KEELRC 768 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court of Kenya
25 June 2020
1,725 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to stop execution of a judgment or reduce interest, ruling the employer used the wrong procedure and should have appealed instead.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court, per Hellen Wasilwa J, delivered a ruling on two applications by the Respondent. The first, a Notice of Motion dated 13th February 2020 under Order 42 Rule 6 and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, sought stay of execution and setting aside of the decree dated 6th February 2020, the proclamation and warrants of attachment, on the ground that they were obtained irregularly. The Respondent had paid Kshs 2,941,807 on 3rd February 2020, but the Claimant thereafter proclaimed property claiming Kshs 8,355,185, largely as compounded interest. The second application dated 24th February 2020 sought review of the judgment of 20th December 2018, which awarded interest from the date of filing suit, contending that the claimed interest of Kshs 5,610,828 was punitive, exorbitant and unconscionable. The Claimant opposed both applications as abuses of process, maintaining he was a man of means capable of refunding any sums ordered. The court dismissed both applications. It held that complaints about irregular warrants of attachment are execution issues within the Deputy Registrar's remit, requiring a reference on taxation rather than the application filed. It declined to review the interest award, having considered the case's long history from the year 2000 and the parties' contribution to delay, and holding that any grievance on that issue lies with the Court of Appeal, not review. It also found no basis for stay as nothing was pending before any court. There was no order of costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution and setting aside of the decree and warrants should be granted

Holding

Application dismissed; warrants irregularity is a Deputy Registrar's execution matter and there is no basis for stay

Reasoning

The court held that allegations of irregularly obtained warrants of attachment raise execution issues that fall within the Deputy Registrar's domain. A party aggrieved by a taxation should file a reference, which the applicant had not done. On stay, nothing was pending before the court or any higher court, so stay was unwarranted.

p. 3
02

Whether the award of interest from the date of filing suit should be reviewed

Holding

Review refused; the judgment on interest stands and any grievance lies on appeal

Reasoning

Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to order interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of suit to the date of decree and further interest thereafter, at rates the court deems reasonable. In the original judgment the court considered the case's length (from the year 2000) and the parties' contribution to the delay, and the award concerned redundancy moneys payable at the time of redundancy. The court found no grounds for review.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Complaints about irregularity of warrants of attachment are execution issues for the Deputy Registrar and must be raised by way of reference on taxation, not by application to the judge.
  • Interest on judgments is governed by Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and its award is a discretionary, case-by-case exercise.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Respondent's Notice of Motion dated 13th February 2020 seeking stay of execution and setting aside of the decree, proclamation and warrants of attachment is dismissed
  2. 2.The Respondent's application for review dated 24th February 2020 seeking to set aside the award of interest from the date of filing suit is dismissed
  3. 3.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 26(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rules 1, 4 and 10
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 8
  • Judicature ActNot specified

Cases cited (2)

  • VRM Vs MRM & Another (2006)
    (2006)
  • Kosar Sultana Vs Khalid Iqbal (2017) eKLR
    (2017) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, with review under Order 42 Rule 6, Order 51 Rules 1, 4 and 10, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Danson Mbubi Mutabi v Konza Ranching & Farming Co-operative Society Limited [2020] KEELRC 768 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/768/eng@2020-06-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.