Raphael Njuguna Kuria v Seven Seas Technologies Limited; Metro Credit Limited Formerly Bobjane Credit Co Limited (Objector) [2021] KEELRC 270 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused an employer's bid to pay a judgment debt in instalments and ordered it to bear the costs, confirming execution against its vehicle was lawful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent should be allowed to pay the judgment sum in instalments and for this reason be granted stay of execution
- 2.Whether the court should order Chador Auctioneers to return motor vehicle registration number KBW 553G, the property of the respondent
Key legal issues
#Whether the judgment sum should be payable in instalments with a stay of execution
Dismissed; the court had already determined the instalment issue in its ruling of 29 March 2021 and stands functus officio
The respondent had earlier proposed instalments of Ksh.20,000 per month in its reply to the application for judgment on admission, and the court's ruling of 29 March 2021 found that nothing had been paid from February 2021. The judgment was never stayed. The respondent did not pursue its June 2021 application until execution commenced. The court therefore could not revisit the instalment question, and the decree remained valid for execution.
Whether the attachment and proposed sale of motor vehicle KBW 553G was lawful and whether the vehicle should be returned
Execution was valid and lawful; no order for return was made
The decree was issued on 28 July 2021 following taxation, and no orders were in place stopping execution. Chador Auctioneers were properly instructed and held warrants of attachment and proclamation. The respondent did not demonstrate that the attached property did not belong to it or that it lacked legal or equitable interest in it. Where attached property belongs to a third party, the respondent bears responsibility in terms of costs.
Legal principles established
#- A court that has delivered judgment on admission, including considering an offer to pay by instalments, becomes functus officio on the question of instalment payments
- A party aggrieved by a judgment entered on admission must seek review under section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act read with Rule 33 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Court orders
#- 1.Applications dated 15th June, 2021 and 23rd August, 2021 dismissed
- 2.Costs of the applications awarded to the claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court Act (section 16 cited), Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016 (Rule 33 cited)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment on admission and leave to pay the decretal sum of Kshs. 1,192,544.95 in monthly instalments of Ksh. 50,000
The court had already considered and rejected the instalment offer in its ruling of 29 March 2021; the judgment was never stayed and the respondent did nothing until execution commenced, leaving the court functus officio
Order that Chador Auctioneers return motor vehicle registration number KBW 553G
Execution was lawful, the warrants and proclamation issued under court authority, and the respondent showed no basis that the property did not belong to it or that it lacked a legal or equitable interest
Costs
costs to the claimant
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The court effectively addressed itself with regard to offer to pay in instalment. On such matter(s) the court stands functus officio.
The respondent has not presented any matter that the attached property and motor vehicle registration number KBW 553G does not belong to them or that they do not have a legal or equitable interest therefrom. Execution herein is proper and lawful.
applications dated 15th June, 2021 ad 23rd August, 2021 are hereby dismissed. costs to the claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#Decretal sum inconsistently recorded as Ksh. 1,192,544.95 and Ksh. 1,192,544.85 in different passages
Costs figure inconsistently recorded as Kshs. 141,823.25 by the respondent and Ksh. 41,823.25 by the claimant
Typos in the date of the instalment application referenced in the ruling (15th June, 2021 vs '29 th August, 2020' and '29 th August, 2021')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Raphael Njuguna Kuria v Seven Seas Technologies Limited; Metro Credit Limited Formerly Bobjane Credit Co Limited (Objector) [2021] KEELRC 270 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/270/eng@2021-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.