Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in excerpt· [2020] KEELRC 1761 (KLR)

Robert Angulu Anyangu v Board of Directors of Potterhouse School Limited & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1761 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
31 January 2020
OMOnesmus N. Makau
1,243 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If you pay a Kenyan court judgment in full, execution against you cannot stand — but you must document any deductions clearly and upfront.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The parties recorded a consent judgment on 12.6.2019 under which the respondent employer was to pay the claimant severance pay of Kshs. 1,239,280 and unpaid salary of Kshs. 885,200, less Kshs. 214,000, giving a net of Kshs. 1,910,480 payable within 15 days, with a certificate of service and each party bearing own costs. The respondent paid Kshs. 1,075,648 directly into the claimant's bank account on 27.6.2019, deducting statutory dues and a SACCO loan of Kshs. 168,293. The claimant, complaining that payment was made to him rather than through his advocates and that the sum was short, instructed execution; on 8.7.2019 auctioneers proclaimed the respondent's goods, also demanding fees of Kshs. 980,000. The respondent filed a Notice of Motion seeking nullification of the proclamation and personal liability of the claimant's advocate for the auctioneer's costs. The court framed three issues: whether the decree was settled before execution, whether execution should be nullified, and who should bear the auctioneer's fees. It held that the respondents bore the burden of justifying the reduced payment with a detailed calculation of statutory deductions under section 19 of the Employment Act, which they failed to do before execution, furnishing particulars only afterwards; however, the later payslip confirmed full settlement on 27.6.2019. Accordingly the execution and warrants were nullified and recalled, the respondents were ordered to pay the auctioneer's fees, the advocate was not condemned personally, and there was no order as to costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the decreed sum was fully settled before execution

Holding

Although the payment of Kshs. 1,075,648 made on 27.6.2019 was in fact the full settlement of the decree after statutory deductions and SACCO loan, the respondents had not discharged their burden of proving this before execution because they supplied no schedule of deductions or itemized payslip until after execution.

Reasoning

The court noted that an employer may lawfully deduct statutory dues under section 19 of the Employment Act. The respondents claimed the net figure reflected statutory deductions and a SACCO loan, but their pre-execution correspondence merely asserted the figure without particulars. Only the letter dated 16.7.2019 and the June 2019 payslip, produced after execution, demonstrated that the payment was full settlement made on 27.6.2019 before the 8.7.2019 execution.

p. 2
02

Whether the execution should be nullified

Holding

Yes; once the decree was settled, execution could not stand, so the proclamation and warrants were nullified and recalled.

Reasoning

The court held that execution cannot issue against a judgment debtor who has satisfied the decree in full. Since the decreed sum had been paid on 27.6.2019 before the 8.7.2019 proclamation, the execution proceedings were without basis and had to be set aside notwithstanding the respondents' own failure to substantiate the payment initially.

p. 2
03

Who should pay the auctioneer's fees and charges

Holding

The respondents/judgment debtors, not the claimant's advocate, must bear the auctioneer's fees and charges.

Reasoning

The execution was provoked by the respondents' unparticularised payment: they paid directly to the claimant's account without a schedule of deductions or itemized payslip, leaving the claimant and his counsel unable to verify the figures. The court therefore refused the prayer to condemn the claimant's advocate personally on a full indemnity basis and instead ordered the respondents to pay the auctioneers, with fees to be agreed or taxed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Upon settlement of the whole decree, no execution can issue against the judgment debtor.
  • A judgment debtor alleging that statutory deductions justify paying less than the decreed sum bears the burden of proving the deductions with a detailed calculation within section 19 of the Employment Act.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The proclamation by General Rift Valley Auctioneers dated 8.7.2019 was nullified
  2. 2.The warrants of execution issued to General Rift Valley Auctioneers were recalled
  3. 3.The respondent/judgment debtors to pay the auctioneers' fees and charges to be agreed on or taxed
  4. 4.The claimant's advocate was not held personally liable for the auctioneer's costs
  5. 5.No order as to costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment ActSection 19
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over execution of its decrees (Notice of Motion dated 9.7.2019)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Robert Angulu Anyangu v Board of Directors of Potterhouse School Limited & 2 others [2020] KEELRC 1761 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/1761/eng@2020-01-31

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