Arisa v Kipkebe Limited; Ryce EA Limited (Objector) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1468 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court halted the seizure of a company's vehicles and froze a costs award, warning decree-holders to verify what they attach before auctioneers act.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent/Applicant satisfied the conditions for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6(2)
Stay granted: substantial loss demonstrated, application filed without delay, and willingness to furnish security shown; the Claimant did not prove ability to refund.
The court found the taxing master overlooked the Applicant's submissions, condemning it unheard, which grounded substantial loss. The application was filed on 28th January 2025 shortly after the 15th January 2025 ruling. The Claimant gave no evidence of capacity to refund the decretal sum. The Applicant offered security. The court held all Order 42 Rule 6(2) conditions were met and granted a conditional stay with the decretal sum deposited as security.
Whether the set-aside of the taxation ruling and Certificate of Costs was warranted
The 15th January 2025 ruling and the 23rd January 2025 Certificate of Costs were set aside to allow the intended appeal to proceed, because the taxing officer failed to consider the Applicant's filed and served submissions.
The taxing officer indicated the Respondent had not filed a response to the Bill, yet submissions dated 11th April 2024 had been filed and served, and the Claimant's own submissions alluded to them. Taxation being judicial, both parties' right to a fair hearing had to be respected; failure to consider the submissions violated that right, justifying setting aside the ruling and certificate.
Whether the proclaimed motor vehicles belong to the Objector and should be released
The Objector's application allowed; NTSA records showed the vehicles were registered in the Objector's name with no connection to the Respondent, and the Claimant did not prove the vehicles belonged to the judgment-debtor.
Applying Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, the burden lay on the objector to prove interest in the attached property. NTSA motor vehicle records showed all the vehicles registered under the Objector's name. The Claimant/Decree-holder, who bore the duty to verify that attached property belongs to the judgment-debtor, adduced no proof of ownership by the Respondent. The proclamation of the Objector's vehicles was therefore unjustified and the application was allowed as prayed.
Legal principles established
#- A money decree does not automatically stay execution; an applicant for stay must show substantial loss under Order 42 Rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the court must balance ensuring an appeal is not rendered nugatory against protecting the respondent's right to enjoy the judgment.
- In objection proceedings, the burden lies on the objector to prove a legal or equitable interest in the attached property, and the decree-holder must ensure the attached property truly belongs to the judgment-debtor.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution granted pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal
- 2.The decretal sum of Kshs.548,775/= to be deposited in court as security pending determination of the intended appeal, within 30 days from the date of delivery of the ruling
- 3.In default of the above conditions, execution to proceed
- 4.The Ruling of the Learned Magistrate Hon. Japhet Bii delivered on 15th January 2025 and the Certificate of Costs issued on 23rd January 2025 set aside to allow the intended appeal to proceed
- 5.Costs of the Respondent/Applicant's application to be in the intended appeal
- 6.The Objector's application dated 4th February 2025 allowed as prayed (attachment lifted and proclaimed vehicles released)
- 7.Costs of the Objector's application to be borne by the Claimant/Decree Holder and Hegeons Auctioneers jointly
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 73(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 read with Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#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
- Jin v Kwale International Sugar Company Limited; BN Kotecha & Sons Limited & 2 others (Objector) (Cause E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2812 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2812 (KLR)16 Oct 2025followed
- Otieno & 3 others v Bandari Football Club (Cause E078, E080, E077 & E079 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2576 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2576 (KLR)25 Sept 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Arisa v Kipkebe Limited; Ryce EA Limited (Objector) (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 1468 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1468/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.