Kariuki & 16 others v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Employment and Labour Relations Petition 2 of 2013) [2023] KEELRC 1819 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed KALRO's bid to cancel attachment warrants because the debt had been paid and the warrants had already expired.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the failure to issue a notice to show cause under Order 22 Rule 18(1)(a) rendered the warrants of attachment unlawful
No - execution was commenced within one year of the last order (the Court of Appeal review decision of April 28, 2022), so the notice requirement did not apply
The court traced the chronology from the judgment of May 3, 2013 through the appeal, cross-appeal, review dismissal on April 28, 2022, and warrants applied for on July 26, 2022. Since execution began within one year of the last order of the Court of Appeal, the proviso/scope of Order 22 Rule 18(1) requiring notice to show cause was not triggered, and the reliance on authorities like Rosslyn Development was misplaced.
Whether execution was unlawful because the decretal sum was secured in a joint interest-earning account
The respondents requested release of the funds by letters of May 5 and May 19, 2022; the applicants only agreed to sign the consent releasing the funds after proclamation had begun, so the execution process was proper
The court found that the respondents wrote to the applicants seeking release of the deposited funds, and the applicants were non-committal. Only after the auctioneers' proclamation did the applicants agree to sign the consent to transfer the funds. The court thus rejected the claim of double recovery and found the execution process, preceded by communication between the parties, was clear and lawful.
Whether there remained anything capable of being recalled or set aside
No - the decretal sum had been paid and the warrants of attachment had expired, rendering the application moot/overtaken by events
The court noted the respondents' point that the warrants had expired and that the decretal sum had been released from the joint account. Since the funds had been paid and no active warrants existed, there was nothing left to recall, cancel or set aside, making the application futile.
Legal principles established
#- Where execution proceedings are commenced within one year of the last order in the matter, the notice to show cause requirement under Order 22 Rule 18(1) does not apply
- An application to recall warrants of attachment that have expired and where the decretal sum has been paid is overtaken by events and untenable
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated May 5, 2022 is dismissed
- 2.No order of costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12(3)(viii) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, rule 32 of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2016, Order 22 Rule 18(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Sections 3A, 63(e) and 94 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki & 16 others v Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Employment and Labour Relations Petition 2 of 2013) [2023] KEELRC 1819 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Nakuru ELRC No. 2 of 2013 (Notice of Motion dated May 5, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/1819/eng@2023-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.