George v Pollman’s Tours & Safaris (Cause 271 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 3347 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to stop execution of an employment award but made the employer-style decree holder pay the auctioneer's fees for skipping proper procedures.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether execution commenced without a decree extracted in accordance with Order 21 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules is irregular and fatal to execution
Failure to forward a draft decree for the judgment debtor's approval is not fatal to execution where the decree accords with the judgment, but the unexplained failure to serve the final decree should not be allowed to prejudice the judgment debtor.
The court reviewed Order 21 Rules 7-9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and adopted Eco Bank Ltd v Elsek & Elsek, holding that non-approval of a draft decree does not warrant setting aside execution unless the decree deviates from the judgment. Here the decree accorded with the judgment. However, the Claimant deliberately failed to explain why the final decree was not served, leaving the Applicant unable to ascertain the exact sum and interest payable; the court held a court would be remiss to allow prejudice from such an unexplained failure.
Whether the sum in the warrants of attachment (Kshs.428,993.90) was exaggerated
The warrants were not exaggerated; the court computed interest on the awarded sum at 12% for six and a half years and found the figure justified.
The judgment awarded interest at court rates from filing until payment in full. Computing interest of 12% on the decretal sum over the period 14th February 2011 to 27th February 2023 yielded approximately Kshs.138,798.40, which supported the interest figure of Kshs.128,706.90 in the warrants. The court therefore rejected the Applicant's claim of exaggeration.
Who should bear the auctioneers' fees
The Claimant/Respondent should settle the auctioneers' fees, following Landmark Holdings Ltd v Robert Mecems Kinyua.
The court found the proclamation preceded the issuance of the settlement cheque and the Claimant failed to explain non-service of the final decree. Following the Landmark Holdings decision, where an irregularity in the execution process occasions costs, the decree holder should bear them, even though the execution itself is not set aside.
Whether the cheque of Kshs.322,837.00 discharged the decretal sum net of statutory deductions
The Applicant failed to demonstrate the derivation of the net figure or the deductions made.
While acknowledging that sums payable to a claimant may be less statutory deductions, the court found the Applicant did not demonstrate how the cheque figure was computed or what was deducted for each statutory requirement, so the cheque could not be accepted as full and final settlement as tendered.
Legal principles established
#- Extraction of a decree prior to execution is mandatory, but failure to forward the draft decree to the judgment debtor for approval is not, of itself, fatal to execution proceedings provided the decree conforms to the judgment.
- The purpose of requiring approval of a draft decree is to prevent disputes and ambushes on judgment debtors; an unexplained failure to serve the final decree may attract prejudicial consequences against the decree holder.
- Where the decree holder's irregularity occasions costs, the decree holder bears the auctioneers' fees.
Court orders
#- 1.The parties to mutually compute the settlement amount within 7 days of the ruling
- 2.In default, the Deputy Registrar of the court to compute the settlement amount, taking into account statutory deductions
- 3.The Claimant/Respondent to settle the auctioneers' fees occasioned by the irregularity
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 12 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act, 2011; Section 49 of the Employment Act, 2007; Rule 17 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Al Bayt Properties Ltd t/a Al Bayt Properties Hotel v Hannington & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E063 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3791 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3791 (KLR)17 Jun 2026
- Arisa v Kipkebe Limited; Ryce EA Limited (Objector) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1468 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1468 (KLR)23 May 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "George v Pollman’s Tours & Safaris (Cause 271 of 2017) [2023] KEELRC 3347 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). ELRC NO. 271 OF 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3347/eng@2023-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.