Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNot stated in judgment (application dated 10th March, 2021)· [2021] KEELRC 1209 (KLR)

Jane Jerotich Sirma v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2021] KEELRC 1209 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 July 2021
2,009 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Employment Court in Nakuru stopped an ex-employee from attaching Postal Corporation's property, ruling a company cannot deduct its own self-assessed losses without a court-supervised assessment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru determined an application dated 10th March 2021 by the Postal Corporation of Kenya, the respondent in the underlying suit, filed under Order 22 Rule 22 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 44(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and section 25 of the Postal Corporation Act. The applicant sought confirmation that Kshs 470,757.72, being its self-assessed loss of user of motor vehicle KAD 294M following irregular attachment by the claimant in execution of her decree, together with costs of its application dated 25th November 2019, be set off against the claimant's award; and restraints against further attachment. The claimant, Jane Jerotich Sirma, opposed the application, arguing that the court was functus officio to order the set-off, that the loss of user was never ordered to be set off from the decree, that the section 25 Postal Corporation Act point was res judicata, and that Order 45 Rule 6 barred review of an order arising from review proceedings. Both parties filed written submissions. The court, per Lady Justice Hellen Wasilwa, noted its earlier ruling of 6th February 2020 directing assessment of loss of non-user, but held that the respondent's own assessment of Kshs 470,757.72 could not be accepted as the loss suffered without assessment by the court. It further held that the claimant could not levy attachment while pursuing an appeal before the Court of Appeal (Serial No. CA NAK 47 of 2020). The court found the application for stay of execution merited and ordered that any attachment by the claimant be stayed pending assessment of loss of user and further orders of the court. The set-off was not granted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could order set-off of the Respondent's self-assessed loss of user

Holding

The court declined to confirm the set-off, holding the assessed figure must first be subjected to assessment by the court

Reasoning

The court acknowledged its earlier ruling directing the respondent to assess loss of non-user of motor vehicle KAD 294M. The respondent filed an assessment of Kshs 470,757.72, which was unchallenged by the claimant. However, the court held that a party's own assessment cannot be accepted as the loss suffered without assessment by the court, and therefore declined to order the set-off sought, instead directing a court-supervised assessment.

p. 3
02

Whether execution should be stayed pending assessment

Holding

Stay of execution granted; attachment by the claimant stayed pending assessment of loss of user and further orders

Reasoning

The court noted the respondent had filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal against the ruling of 6th February 2020. The court reasoned that the claimant could not levy attachment while simultaneously pursuing an appeal, and found the application for stay of execution merited on that basis.

p. 3
03

Whether the court is functus officio to order set-off

Holding

The court did not make a definitive finding on functus officio, proceeding instead to order a stay and court-supervised assessment

Reasoning

The claimant argued the court was functus officio to order set-off of the alleged loss of user and that the respondent should file separate proceedings. The applicant argued the court was seized of the matter at execution stage. The court did not expressly resolve this issue, dealing with the matter by staying execution pending assessment.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party's own unilateral assessment of loss of user cannot stand as the measure of loss without court assessment
  • A decree-holder who has filed an appeal against the ruling cannot simultaneously levy execution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of execution granted - any attachment by the claimant is stayed pending assessment of loss of user by the respondent on their motor vehicle KAD 294M and upon further orders of this court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 22
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 44(2)
  • Postal Corporation ActSection 25

Cases cited (1)

  • Equity Bank Limited v Neptune Credit Management Limited
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 22 Rule 22, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 44(2) of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 25 of the Postal Corporation Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jane Jerotich Sirma v Postal Corporation of Kenya [2021] KEELRC 1209 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in judgment (application dated 10th March, 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1209/eng@2021-07-22

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