Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedCause No 125 of 2015· [2025] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Eastern Produce Kenya Limited (Cause 125 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (court not expressly named in the judgment)
11 June 2025
AMAnna Ngibuini Mwaure
775 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court in Nakuru ordered Kshs. 173,185 deposited as court security released to the applicant after the Court of Appeal ended the dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a Notice of Motion dated 29th July 2024, expressed to be brought under Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 1A, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking release of Kshs. 173,185/= deposited in court as security pending the hearing and determination of Nakuru CACA No. 308 of 2019. The application was supported by an affidavit of Edwin K. Ruto, the Applicant's advocate, who explained that judgment had been delivered in the underlying High Court suit on 1st April 2017, that the applicant appealed, and that the appeal was determined by the Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered via email on 26th April 2024, after which the lower court case was dismissed with costs. The deposited security sum, paid in on 3rd July 2018, was therefore to be released to M/S Kibichiy & Co. Advocates as the matter was closed. The Claimant/Respondent filed no response. In its analysis the court framed a single issue: whether to order release of the deposited sum. Relying on section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Act on restitution where a decree is varied or reversed, the court noted that the Court of Appeal had held that the Claimant/Respondent was not entitled to the decretal sum held in court, and that it was therefore fair and reasonable for the money to be released to the Applicant/Respondent. The court found the application merited and ordered release of Kshs. 173,185/= to M/S Kibichiy & Co. Advocates. No costs order is recorded. The judgment contains material internal inconsistencies: the motion describes the appeal as allowed in toto while the analysis describes it as dismissed, and party role labels are inconsistent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Release of security sum deposited in court after determination of the appeal

Holding

The application was merited; the deposited sum was to be released to the Applicant's advocates as the appeal had been determined and the claimant was found not entitled to the decretal sum

Reasoning

The court perused the application and supporting affidavit. Section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Act governs restitution where a decree is varied or reversed. Since the Court of Appeal, in its judgment of 26th April 2024, held that the Claimant/Respondent was not entitled to the decretal sum held in court, it was fair and reasonable that the deposited sum be released to the Applicant/Respondent. The Claimant/Respondent filed no response opposing the application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a decree is varied or reversed, the court of first instance shall, on application, cause restitution so as to place the parties in the position they would have occupied but for the decree

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The sum of Kshs. 173,185/= deposited in court pending hearing and determination of appeal Nakuru CACA No. 308 of 2019 is to be released to M/S Kibichiy & Co. Advocates

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 91(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Eastern Produce Kenya Limited (Cause 125 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 1691 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No 125 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1691/eng@2025-06-11

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