Paul Mwangi & Co Advocates v P.V.R. RAO (Receiver of Athi River Steel Plant Ltd in Receivership); Dancy Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Cause E218 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 269 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed Athi River Steel Plant's receiver's attempt to stop property attachment, finding he and his lawyer misled the court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the firm of Keaton & Keaton Advocates should be granted leave to come on record for the Respondent
- 2.Whether a stay of execution of the warrants of attachment and of the judgment of 11 June 2024 and decree of 17 July 2024 should issue
- 3.Whether the judgment entered on 11 June 2024 and the decree of 17 July 2024 should be set aside
- 4.Whether the Respondent should be granted leave to appeal out of time against the Ruling of 11 June 2024
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent was entitled to a stay of execution and setting aside of the judgment
The Motion was dismissed because the Respondent abused the court process, acted in bad faith, and made dishonest disclosures
The Respondent's father had sworn an affidavit claiming ownership of the proclaimed properties, and the Respondent then personally claimed the same properties, leading the Court to infer conspiracy to mislead it. The same stay relief had been refused on 14 November 2024. The Respondent never defended the suit despite service and further leave, and offered no explanation for the over-four-month delay in seeking leave to appeal.
Whether the advocate seeking to come on record should be granted leave
Leave was declined because the advocate had not made honest and truthful disclosures
The Court held that disclosures made through an advocate form part of the advocate's professional duty of honesty and candour. The certificate of urgency, grounds in support of the Motion and the affidavits lacked honest disclosure, and the advocate had threatened to report the Judge to the Judicial Service Commission when off-the-record suggestions were declined.
Legal principles established
#- A party approaching the Court has a duty of truthful and honest disclosure, and an advocate must be honest, truthful and candid in disclosures made on a client's behalf
- Bringing a fresh motion over an issue the Court had already determined constitutes abuse of court process and bad faith
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 20 November 2024 by the Respondent is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over the suit and incidental applications; specific provision not cited in the judgment.
Relief refused
#Leave for Keaton & Keaton Advocates to come on record for the Respondent
The Court found dishonesty and lack of truthful disclosures by both the Respondent and the advocate
Stay of execution of the warrants of attachment and of the judgment and decree
The same relief had been sought and refused in the Motion dated 19 July 2024, and the Respondent had failed to make honest disclosures
Setting aside of the judgment of 11 June 2024 and decree of 17 July 2024
The Respondent never defended the initial proceedings despite service and further leave to defend
Leave to appeal out of time against the Ruling of 11 June 2024
The Respondent did not explain the delay of over four months in seeking to lodge an appeal
Costs
The Motion dated 20 November 2024 by the Respondent is dismissed with costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A party who approaches a Court has a duty to the Court to make truthful and honest disclosures whether through an afidavit or from the bar.
The Court has no hesitation in inferring that the two conspired to mislead the Court regarding the proclaimed properties' ownership.
The dishonesty and lack of truth disinclines the Court to grant any of the orders sought by the Respondent.
The Motion dated 20 November 2024 by the Respondent is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion recites inconsistent judgment dates in its prayers: 'judgment entered on 11th July 2024' in prayer (iv) versus 'judgment entered on 11th June 2024' in prayers (v) and (vi)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Paul Mwangi & Co Advocates v P.V.R. RAO (Receiver of Athi River Steel Plant Ltd in Receivership); Dancy Auctioneers (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Cause E218 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 269 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/269/eng@2025-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.