Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedMiscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024 (Ruling on Motion dated 11 April 2025)· [2025] KEELRC 1675 (KLR)

V. Chokaa & Co., Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1675 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 June 2025
RSRadido Stephen
1,161 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

#

Roy Hauliers lost its bid to stop a Kshs 2.3 million decree after the court ruled it cannot deny the very jurisdiction it had already used.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Roy Hauliers moved the Employment and Labour Relations Court by Motion dated 11 April 2025 seeking (i) stay of execution of the decree issued on 20th and 27th February 2025 in ELRC Misc. Appl. Nos. E227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 & 241 of 2024, under which judgment of Kshs. 2,287,511.05/- was entered against it in favour of V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates, and (ii) review, setting aside or withdrawal of the judgment and decree on the ground that the Court lacked jurisdiction over what it characterised as a commercial dispute concerning bills of costs under the Advocates Act. The advocate opposed, contending the Respondent had filed a Reference precipitating the rulings, should have appealed, that the Court was functus officio, and that the Respondent had disobeyed earlier orders. The Court dismissed the Motion. It held the Respondent estopped from challenging jurisdiction, having itself invoked the same Court's jurisdiction in a Reference of 15 October 2024 and a stay Motion of 3 April 2025 without objection; a party cannot 'speak from both sides of its mouth', and a court without jurisdiction cannot validly take any step, including granting the very stay sought. The proper avenue was appeal against the Rulings. The Court also noted the Respondent's piecemeal, unsynchronised applications across related files and designated Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024 as lead file for all further applications. The Motion was dismissed with costs to the Advocate, the orders applying to all related files.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Motion

Holding

The Court declined to entertain the jurisdictional challenge as disingenuous; the Respondent had previously invoked the same Court's jurisdiction in a Reference and in a stay application without raising the objection

Reasoning

The Court noted the Respondent had itself filed a Reference on 15 October 2024 seeking setting aside of taxation, and a Motion dated 3 April 2025 seeking stay, in neither of which jurisdiction was questioned. A party cannot approbate and reprobate; having moved the same Court repeatedly, the Respondent was estopped from now denying its jurisdiction. The proper remedy was appeal.

p. 3
02

Whether the judgment and decree should be reviewed or set aside for want of jurisdiction

Holding

Refused

Reasoning

The Court held it would be a legal marvel to grant orders of review to a party asserting the Court lacked jurisdiction, since a court without jurisdiction cannot validly take any step in proceedings, including granting the very relief sought. The remedy lay in appeal, not review before the allegedly incompetent forum.

p. 3
03

Case management of related files

Holding

Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024 designated the lead file; all further applications to be filed there

Reasoning

The Respondent had been filing applications in related files without synchronisation, with applications placed before different Courts, risking inconsistent outcomes. To prevent an embarrassing outcome, the Court designated E236 of 2024 as lead file and directed all further applications to be filed there.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot simultaneously invoke a court's jurisdiction and deny it; a court without jurisdiction cannot validly take a step in the proceedings
  • A party alleging lack of jurisdiction must pursue appeal rather than ask the same court to review or set aside its own decision
  • Where related applications are filed in multiple files without synchronisation, one file may be designated lead file to avoid inconsistent outcomes

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Motion dated 11 April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate
  2. 2.This Ruling/orders to apply in all the files enumerated in paragraph 1(iv) above
  3. 3.Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024, V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers is henceforth designated the lead file
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution (jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, as argued by the Respondent); application under the Court's incidental powers

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co., Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1675 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024 (Ruling on Motion dated 11 April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1675/eng@2025-06-10

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