Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCOtherMiscellaneous Cause arising out of Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 18 of 2016 (Notice of Motion dated 25th February, 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 1590 (KLR)

Kimanzi v Mwangangi (Miscellaneous Cause E056 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1590 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
23 May 2025
1,156 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed a man was owed back a Kshs.1 million contempt fine, but ruled he must apply for the refund in his original case, not a side application.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi (Nzei, J) determines an unopposed Notice of Motion dated 25th February, 2025 by Alex Kimanzi (Alexander N. Kimanzi) seeking refund of a fine of Kshs.1,000,000/= paid pursuant to a Ruling delivered on 14th November, 2016 by Ndolo, J in Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 18 of 2016, in which he was cited for contempt and fined, with a default commitment to civil jail for 30 days. The Applicant paid the fine on 18th November, 2016, as evidenced by a bank deposit slip and court receipt issued in the name Alexander N. Kimanzi. He appealed to the Court of Appeal in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 187 of 2017, which by judgment dated 3rd February, 2023 set aside the ELRC orders of 14th November, 2016 and ordered that the fine be refunded if paid. The application was brought under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, supported by an affidavit and a supplementary affidavit confirming that Alex Kimanzi and Alexander N. Kimanzi are one and the same person. The Court perused the original file in Cause No. 18 of 2016 and verified the payment documents. It held that although the Applicant is clearly entitled to the refund, the Court could not make a refund order in a miscellaneous cause when the original court file in Cause No. 18 of 2016 is available. It declined to dismiss the application in the interest of justice but directed the Applicant to lodge a certified copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in the original cause file and to file an appropriate application there for the refund, possibly to be handled by the Deputy Registrar upon verification of the original documents. No order as to costs was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Entitlement to refund of a fine paid pursuant to contempt orders subsequently set aside on appeal

Holding

The Applicant is entitled to refund of the Kshs.1,000,000/= fine pursuant to the Court of Appeal's judgment of 3rd February, 2023, which set aside the orders of 14th November, 2016 and directed refund if the fine had been paid.

Reasoning

The original ELRC ruling of 14th November, 2016 cited the Applicant for contempt and fined him Kshs.1,000,000/=, which he paid via bank deposit and court receipt issued to Alexander N. Kimanzi. The Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 187 of 2017 set aside those orders and ordered refund of the money if paid. The Court verified the payment documents against the original court file and found the Applicant entitled to the refund.

p. 3
02

Correct procedural vehicle for seeking the refund

Holding

The refund application should be made in the original Cause No. 18 of 2016, whose original file is available, rather than in a miscellaneous cause.

Reasoning

The Court questioned why the refund application was not filed in Cause No. 18 of 2016 where the order for payment was made and where the original file remains available. Although it declined to dismiss the application in the interest of justice, it declined to grant the refund in the miscellaneous cause and instead directed the Applicant to lodge the certified Court of Appeal judgment in the original file and file an appropriate application there.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An order for refund of a fine paid under orders later set aside on appeal should be sought in the original cause in which the order was made, not in a separate miscellaneous cause where the original court file is available.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant shall forthwith place a certified copy of the Court of Appeal's Judgment delivered on 3rd February, 2023 in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 187 of 2017 (Alex Kimanzi – vs – Dr. Evans Mumo Mwangangi) in this Court's record/file in Cause No. 18 of 2016.
  2. 2.The Applicant may file an appropriate application in this Court's Cause No. 18 of 2016 for issuance of an order for refund of the fine in issue to the Applicant, possibly by the Court's Deputy Registrar, upon perusal and verification of original copies of the documents exhibited herein.
  3. 3.No order as to costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A

Cases cited (2)

  • Evans Mumo Mwangangi – vs – Kitui County Service Board & 4 Others
    Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 18 of 2016
  • Alex Kimanzi – vs – Dr. Evans Mumo Mwangangi
    Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 187 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and other enabling provisions of the law

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kimanzi v Mwangangi (Miscellaneous Cause E056 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Cause arising out of Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 18 of 2016 (Notice of Motion dated 25th February, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1590/eng@2025-05-23

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