Kehodo v Scangraphics Kenya Ltd (Cause 437 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 2019 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi employment court allowed auctioneers to attach property for a three-year-old unpaid judgment, refusing to halt execution on procedural technicalities.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a notice to show cause should have been issued to the Judgment Debtor before warrants of attachment were issued, given that the decree is more than one year old (Order 22 Rule 18(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules)
- 2.Whether the warrants of attachment issued to M/s Ruol Auctioneers should be stayed and/or set aside
- 3.Whether the application is an abuse of process and a tactic to delay execution
Key legal issues
#Whether a notice to show cause was required under Order 22 Rule 18(1)(a) before issuing warrants of attachment against a judgment debtor where the decree is over one year old
The court declined to grant stay or set aside the warrants, effectively holding that the procedural requirement could not be used to shield a judgment debtor who had subverted execution for over three years
The applicant relied on Order 22 Rules 6 and 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules to argue that a decree over one year old required a notice to show cause before warrants issued. The respondent countered that prior execution attempts through Mbeki Auctioneers failed because the applicant closed shop and disappeared, and that strict reliance on the rules would be an undue technicality contrary to Article 159 of the Constitution and would breach the decree holder's rights under Articles 47 and 48. The court found no reason to warrant a stay of a decree pending execution for over three years.
Legal principles established
#- Where a judgment debtor has frustrated execution of a decree for over three years, the court will decline to grant stay on the basis of procedural notice requirements under Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, in line with the constitutional command to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the warrants of attachment issued to M/s Ruol Auctioneers on 9th December 2024 is declined
- 2.Execution of the decree to proceed
- 3.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original and supervisory execution jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own decree
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the warrants of attachment issued to M/s Ruol Auctioneers
There was no reason to warrant a stay of a decree pending execution for over three years; the applicant was subverting execution
Setting aside of the warrants issued to M/s Ruol Auctioneers
The Notice to show cause requirement was said not to arise on the facts as the applicant had frustrated prior execution attempts
Costs
Costs in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is true that there is currently no reason that would warrant another stay of execution of a decree which has been pending execution for over 3 years.
In the circumstances of the case, I decline to grant stay orders as sought and direct execution to proceed. Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the judgment in the claimant's favour was delivered on 20th January 2022, while the claimant's replying affidavit refers to delivery on 22nd January 2025 (and submissions refer to a decree issued on 22nd January 2022), creating internal inconsistency on the judgment/decree dates
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kehodo v Scangraphics Kenya Ltd (Cause 437 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 2019 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2019/eng@2025-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.