Sankale v Maasai Mara University & another (Petition E097 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1380 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kabarak University lost its bid to stop auction of an attached vehicle because it had not fully obeyed the court's judgment or appealed it.
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 Applicant has established a prima facie case with probability of success warranting interlocutory injunction
- 2.Whether the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld
- 3.Whether execution against the Applicant, a public university, is barred under Order 29 Rule 2(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 4.Whether the attached motor vehicle should be released
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case established since the Applicant has not obeyed the judgment and no appeal was preferred
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found that the Applicant settled only the decretal sum and auctioneers' fees but not costs, interests and the certificate of service as directed by the court. Having not appealed the judgment, the Applicant was bound to obey its terms, leaving no arguable right capable of protection by injunction.
Irreparable harm
Any harm to the Applicant does not outweigh the Respondents' entitlement to the fruits of their judgment
Although the Applicant demonstrated it continues to incur transport costs due to detention of the vehicle, the court held that the Respondents are equally entitled to recover costs, interests and obtain the certificate of service. The Applicant's own disobedience of the court's directions disentitled it from equitable relief.
Estoppel from challenging execution after partial compliance
The Applicant was estopped from challenging the execution process on costs and interest after settling the decretal sum and auctioneers' fees obtained from the same process
The court reasoned that by choosing to settle the decretal sum and auctioneers' fees - sums initiated through the very execution process it was challenging - the Applicant validated the process and could not thereafter pick and choose which parts to challenge, particularly where an agreement on costs and interest of Kshs 700,000 had been reached.
Legal principles established
#- A party who settles a decretal sum arising from a process it later challenges is estopped from challenging the remainder of that process
- Terms of a judgment must be obeyed in full where no appeal has been preferred against it
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 6th December 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution; Section 12(3) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining alienation, sale by public auction or disposal of motor vehicle KCP 274K-Toyota Corolla
No prima facie case as the Applicant has not obeyed the judgment of the court, having failed to pay costs and interest and issue certificate of service
Order compelling the Respondents to release motor vehicle KCP 274K-Toyota Corolla
The Applicant is estopped from challenging the execution process and must first settle costs and interest and issue certificate of service as per the court's directions
Permanent injunction restraining execution of decrees and orders against the Applicant
Application found without merit; the Respondents are entitled to the fruits of their judgment
Costs
The application dated 6th December,2024 is found without merit and the same is hereby 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.
In conclusion the application dated 6th December,2024 is found without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
The Applicant has not preferred an appeal against the judgment hence the terms of the judgment have to be obeyed to the letter.
the applicant was estopped from challenging the rest of the process on costs and interest.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers the Applicant to reliance on 'Order 22 Rule 2(b)' in one passage and 'Order 29 Rule 2(b)' in others, creating uncertainty as to which provision was invoked
The names and designations of the parties are not stated in the cause title; the parties are referred to only as Applicant, Petitioner, 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent
The decretal damages figure is inconsistently typed as 'Kshs 3,1000,716/='
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sankale v Maasai Mara University & another (Petition E097 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 1380 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1380/eng@2025-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.