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 the judgment· [2021] KEELRC 1623 (KLR)

Geofrey Asanyo v County Government of Nakuru, Nakuru Water and Sanitation Co.Ltd & Rift Valley Water Services Board [20 [2021] KEELRC 1623 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
3 June 2021
HWHellen Wasilwa
1,826 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 blocked an arrest warrant over a costs dispute but refused to revive a challenge the claimant left dormant since 2017.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (Hellen Wasilwa, J) determines the claimant's application dated 22nd February 2021 filed by Konosi & Company Advocates. The claimant sought, inter alia, a stay of a warrant of arrest issued on 3rd December 2019, and enlargement of time within which to object to a taxing officer's decision of 10th October 2017 which allowed the respondent's bill of costs in the sum of Kshs. 552,432. He complained that no orders were extracted from an earlier ruling, that he was not served with the Notice to Show Cause in time, that the taxing officer failed to tabulate the taxed figure, awarded getting-up fees for a summary concluded matter, and that the warrant was to be executed by police rather than a court bailiff. The respondent, through C. Mburu Koigi, opposed the application as frivolous and an abuse of process, noting the claimant had already obtained a 21-day stay after the taxation ruling and had failed to prosecute a 2018 application. Both sides filed written submissions. The court found the claim of lack of notice untrue since the taxation ruling was delivered in the claimant's presence, and held that the remaining complaints belonged to a reference which was never filed since 2017. The court stayed the warrant of arrest in the meantime, directed the applicant to appear before the Deputy Registrar for notice to show cause consideration before further directions, but denied the application to enlarge time to file a reference due to the delay, awarding costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the claimant was served with the Notice to Show Cause

Holding

The court found the claim was not true because the claimant was present when the taxing ruling was delivered

Reasoning

The court noted the impugned taxation proceeded inter partes by consent by way of written submissions and the ruling was delivered in the claimant's presence, where his then advocates sought and obtained a 21-day stay. The assertion of lack of timely notice was therefore rejected as untrue, and the remaining complaints were held to belong to a reference which was never filed.

p. 3
02

Whether time should be enlarged for filing a reference to the bill of costs

Holding

Extension of time denied due to inordinate and unexplained delay since 2017

Reasoning

The claimant had already obtained a 21-day stay after the taxing ruling and later filed a 2018 application for stay and leave to seek reasons which was never prosecuted until withdrawn. The court held the delay since 2017 was occasioned by the applicant and declined to exercise discretion to enlarge time.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A warrant of arrest issued in execution may be stayed pending further consideration of the notice to show cause before the Deputy Registrar

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant will appear before the Deputy Registrar for a NTSC consideration before further directions are given
  2. 2.The warrant of arrest is stayed in the meantime
  3. 3.The application to enlarge time to file a reference is denied
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Advocates Remuneration OrderRule 11(1); Rule 11(4); paragraph 11; paragraph 1(b) schedule 6
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) RulesRules 31 and 32
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 38
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rule 31(1)

Cases cited (9)

  • Rubo Kimngetich arap cheruiyot -Versus- Peter Kiprop Rotich
    [2006] eKLR
  • Elizabeth Kavere and another –v- Lilian Atho and another
    [2020] eKLR
  • Solomon muuriithi Gitandu and another –v- Jared Maingi Mburu
    [2017] eKLR
  • Republic –v- Chesang Resident Magistrate & 2 others exparte Paul Karanja Kamunge t/a Davisco agencies and 2 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • George Arab Mu;I Mwalabu –v- Senior Resident Magistrate Kangundo and 2 others; Festus Mbai Mbonye (interested party)
    [2019] eKLR
  • George Kagima Kariuki & 2 others –versus- George M. Gichimu & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • County executive of Kisumu-v- County Government of Kisumu & 8 others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Republic –versus- Kenyatta Unoversisty and another Ex parte Wellington Kihato Wamburu
    [2018] eKLR
  • Mario Rossi –v- salama beach hotel limited
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules; Advocates Remuneration Order Rule 11

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Geofrey Asanyo v County Government of Nakuru, Nakuru Water and Sanitation Co.Ltd & Rift Valley Water Services Board [20 [2021] KEELRC 1623 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1623/eng@2021-06-03

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