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 excerpt provided· [2023] KEELRC 1419 (KLR)

Mokono v Mills Industries Limited (Cause 1778 of 2015) [2023] KEELRC 1419 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
17 May 2023
NMNzioki wa Makau
813 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Employment Court confirmed that money deposited to satisfy a judgment can be released to the claimant's advocate, who deducts fees before paying the client.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Claimant/Applicant moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Notice of Motion seeking review or correction of Order No 2 of the Court's orders of April 28, 2022, so that money deposited in court towards the decretal sum be released to or through the Claimant's Advocates, Namada & Co Advocates, rather than directly to the Claimant, with costs in the cause. The application was supported by the affidavit of the Claimant's advocate, Namada Simoni, and grounded on section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016, particularly limbs (c) clarification and (d) any other sufficient reason. Counsel relied on Kenya Bus Service Ltd v Susan Muteti and Order 9 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 to argue that an advocate remains the party's agent until conclusion of the matter, including receipt of decretal sums, and on Bill Baba Owuor v National Bank of Kenya for the advocate's professional lien over the decretal sum. The Respondent filed neither a response nor submissions. The court, Nzioki wa Makau J, reviewed its ruling of April 28, 2022 and held that, absent any objection, the deposited funds could be released to the firm of Namada & Co Advocates for onward transmission to the Claimant. Order No 2 was amended accordingly to substitute Namada & Co Advocates for the Claimant, with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Review and clarification of the Court's own order under Rule 33(1)(c) and (d)

Holding

The application satisfied the review threshold as the order required clarification as to the channel of release of the decretal funds

Reasoning

The Applicant invoked section 16 of the ELRC Act and Rule 33(1) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2016, specifically limbs (c) clarification and (d) any other sufficient reason. The court found the order needed correction to reflect the normal process by which client funds are remitted through advocates, who hold a lien over fees. The Respondent filed no response and raised no objection.

p. 2
02

Advocate's entitlement to receive decretal funds on behalf of a client

Holding

An advocate may receive the decretal sum, taking the advocate's costs upfront and remitting the balance to the client

Reasoning

Relying on Kenya Bus Service Ltd v Susan Muteti and Order 9 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, the applicant argued the advocate remains the party's agent until final conclusion including receipt of decretal sums. The Bill Baba Owuor case supported a professional lien over the decretal sum. The court accepted release through the firm of Namada & Co Advocates for onward transmission.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a sum has been deposited in court to meet the decretal sum due to a Claimant and there is no objection, the funds may be released to the Claimant's advocates on account of the advocate's lien for fees

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Order No 2 of the Orders of April 28, 2022 amended to reflect the name of Namada & Co Advocates in place of the Claimant
  2. 2.No order as to costs in regard to the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Employment and Labour Relations Court Actsection 16
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016Rule 33(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 9 Rule 5

Cases cited (2)

  • Kenya Bus Service Ltd v Susan Muteti
    [1996] eKLR
  • Bill Baba Owuor v National Bank of Kenya
    [2022] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 33(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules 2016 (review jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mokono v Mills Industries Limited (Cause 1778 of 2015) [2023] KEELRC 1419 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1419/eng@2023-05-17

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