V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1674 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed Roy Hauliers' bid to stop a law firm from recovering taxed costs because the company ignored a court condition to deposit the disputed money.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Stay of execution where interim orders were not granted at the ex-parte stage
Orders sought to preserve the status quo pending inter-partes hearing lapsed or became overtaken by events when not granted ex-parte
The court reasoned that all the orders pleaded by the Respondent were transient and intended to preserve the status quo only pending the inter-partes hearing; once they were not granted at the ex-parte stage they became overtaken by events, leaving nothing to adjudicate on that limb of the Motion.
Character of the payment of Kshs 969,104/-
The payment was security for a stay of execution pending appeal in Cause No. 1818 of 2019 (Japheth Simiyu v Roy Hauliers), not part settlement of the taxed advocates' costs
The advocate produced records showing the payment of 16 May 2023 related to security of costs pending an appeal in Cause No. 1818 of 2019, a matter distinct from the taxed advocate/client Bill of Costs of 30 September 2024. The temporal and contextual discrepancy showed the payment could not ground a claim of part-settlement of costs.
Effect of failure to comply with a condition attached to interim relief
Failure to deposit the sum in court or provide a bank guarantee as conditioned disentitled the Respondent from the discretionary relief
The court had granted an interim stay on condition that the Respondent deposit Kshs 969,104/- in court or provide a bank guarantee by 10 April 2025. The Respondent did not comply. A party invoking the court's discretion must show bona fides by complying with such conditions; non-compliance was fatal to the Motion.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking an exercise of the court's discretion should demonstrate bona fides by complying with conditions attached to interim orders
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 3 April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate
- 2.This Ruling/orders to apply in all the files enumerated in paragraph 1(iii)
- 3.This file is designated Lead File, and any further application should be made herein
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court's discretionary jurisdiction over stay of execution of its own rulings (not expressly stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1674 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous Application (Lead File, encompassing Misc. E227/2024, E230/2024, E237/2024, E238/2024, E239/2024, E240/2024, E224/2024, E231/2024, E232/2024, E234/2024, E235/2024, E236/2024 and E24/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1674/eng@2025-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.