Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedApplication dated 26.02.2025 (Notice of Motion) in the principal suit· [2025] KEELRC 878 (KLR)

Akello v Rural Development Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 554 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 878 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
19 March 2025
1,661 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

#

Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a former director's bid to stop attachment of his property, ruling a dissolved company cannot file applications and delayed stay requests fail.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant/applicant, Svein Rene, filed a Notice of Motion dated 26.02.2025 under Orders 22, 40, 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 25(c), 50(1) and 159(d) of the Constitution, seeking stay of execution of the decree dated 31.01.2020 and warrants of attachment dated 15.02.2025, lifting of the proclamation levied on household items by Vision Root Auctioneers, and directions on pending applications dated 26.10.2022 and 19.10.2023. The respondent, Tony Ben Olang' Okello, opposed, showing that judgment of Kshs 4,000,000 was entered on 17.01.2020; a ruling of 31.07.2023 by M.Onyango J held the former directors jointly and severally personally liable for dissolving the company during the suit; and conditional stay orders of 01.11.2023 and 07.05.2024 required the directors to satisfy the decree by 15.08.2024, failing which execution would issue. The court found the directors never complied and made no offer to settle, that the application was filed after inordinate delay without disclosing any ground for review, and that it was a tactic to frustrate enjoyment of the fruits of judgment. It further held the application was fatally defective because the company on whose behalf it was filed had been dissolved in June 2019 and no longer existed. The application was dismissed with no costs, the applicant being given liberty to appeal, with a temporary stay of execution until 04.04.2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether stay of execution should issue pending determination of the pending applications dated 26.10.2022 and 19.10.2023

Holding

Stay was refused because earlier conditional stay orders had lapsed on non-compliance, the decree remained unsatisfied past the 15.08.2024 deadline, and no ground for review was disclosed

Reasoning

The court traced the chronology: temporary stay was granted on 01.11.2023 conditional on deposit of the decretal sum; time was extended to 02.05.2024; on 07.05.2024 the directors were given until 15.08.2024 to satisfy the decree failing which execution would issue. The deadline passed with no compliance and no offer to settle, so execution properly issued. The present application was a delay tactic.

p. 4
02

Whether the applicant, suing for a dissolved company, had capacity to bring the application

Holding

The application failed because the company on whose behalf it was filed was dissolved in June 2019 and no longer existed as a legal person

Reasoning

The court noted that the 19.10.2023, 26.10.2022 and 26.02.2025 applications were all filed for and on behalf of the company, yet the ruling of 31.07.2023 recorded that the company had voluntarily dissolved during the pendency of the suit (in June 2019). A non-existent party cannot institute or sustain proceedings, so the application had to collapse.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Execution in accordance with subsisting court orders that have not been set aside in review or appeal is lawful and applications to stop it made after inordinate delay and without a disclosed ground for review will be dismissed
  • Court process cannot be taken out in the name of a company that has been dissolved and no longer exists

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 26.02.2025 is dismissed with no costs
  2. 2.The applicant is at liberty to appeal or move the Court of Appeal as appropriate
  3. 3.Temporary stay of execution until 04.04.2025, as may be necessary
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 22, 40, 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Articles 25(c), 50(1) and 159(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Akello v Rural Development Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 554 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 878 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 26.02.2025 (Notice of Motion) in the principal suit. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/878/eng@2025-03-19

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