Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedNakuru ELRCA No. E012 of 2025· [2025] KEELRC 2838 (KLR)

Olkalou Dairy (2016) Ltd v Churchill Rombosia Kimwanga & another (Appeal E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2838 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
22 October 2025
3,803 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan employer facing attachment won a stay of execution, but only by agreeing to deposit the full decretal sum in court within 21 days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru (Anna Ngibuini Mwaure, J) determined two applications in an appeal, Nakuru ELRCA No. E012 of 2025, against a judgment of the Nyahururu CMELRC (Hon. E.H. Keago) delivered on 12th February 2025 awarding the 1st Respondent Kshs.205,961/= for salary in lieu of notice, salary arrears, leave, service gratuity, costs and interest. The first application, dated 13th March 2025, sought a stay of execution pending appeal; the second, dated 14th April 2025, sought declarations that the Warrants of Attachment dated 4th April 2025 and the Proclamation Notice dated 8th April 2025 by Bemac Auctioneers were irregular, null and void, together with setting them aside and relief from auctioneer fees. The Applicant contended the appeal was arguable and filed without delay, that substantial loss would follow, that the proclaimed assets were secured under a debenture with Co-operative Bank of Kenya, and that cost assessment documents were never served as required by Order 21 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Respondents argued execution was lawful, the assets were not tools of trade of a company, the debenture had not crystallised by any enforcement action by the Bank, and no substantial loss was demonstrated. Applying Rule 73(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024, Order 42 Rule 6, and the principles in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal, the court found all stay conditions satisfied. It stayed the attachment and the execution of the judgment, subject to the Applicant depositing Kshs.205,961/= in court within 21 days, declared the warrants and proclamation null and void ab initio, and ordered costs in the cause. The court did not grant the specific relief on auctioneer fees and court collection fees.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the requirements for stay of execution under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied

Holding

The court found the application was filed without undue delay, substantial loss may result, and the Applicant was willing to provide security, entitling it to a stay subject to depositing the decretal sum

Reasoning

The court applied Rule 73(2) of the ELRC (Procedure) Rules 2024, which imports the Civil Procedure Rules on execution and stay. It reiterated the principles in Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal and Order 42 Rule 6, found the appeal filed within reasonable time, accepted the Applicant's explanation of substantial loss and its willingness to deposit the decretal sum, and held that all conditions were satisfied, obliging the court to grant the stay sought in the 13th March 2025 application.

p. 7
02

Whether the Warrants of Attachment dated 4th April 2025 and Proclamation Notice dated 8th April 2025 were irregular and void

Holding

The court declared the warrants and proclamation notice irregular, null and void ab initio

Reasoning

The Applicant contended that no service of the cost assessment documents was effected as required under Order 21 Rule 9A of the Civil Procedure Rules and that the proclaimed assets were secured under a debenture with Co-operative Bank. The Respondents argued execution was lawful and the debenture had not crystallised by any enforcement action by the Bank. The court, evidently accepting the irregularity arguments, declared the warrants and proclamation null and void ab initio and stayed the attachment subject to the deposit of the decretal sum.

p. 8
03

Whether the proclaimed assets were exempt as tools of trade under Section 44(1)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

The court did not grant exemption on this basis; it granted the stay on the Order 42 Rule 6 conditions and by reason of the irregular warrants

Reasoning

The court reproduced section 44(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which exempts tools and implements of a person necessary for their trade or profession. The Respondent relied on Blackwood Hodge and Invesco Assurance holding that section 44 protects natural persons, not companies. The final orders rested on the stay conditions and the nullity of the warrants rather than on a tools-of-trade exemption, so this argument was not determinative.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Stay of execution will only be granted if the application is made without undue delay, substantial loss may result if stay is not granted, and the applicant is able and willing to give security
  • The court's discretion on stay must be exercised to ensure the appeal is not rendered nugatory if it succeeds

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of attachment of the proclaimed movable properties per the proclamation/distrain notice dated 8th April 2025, subject to the Applicant depositing Kshs.205,961/= in court within 21 days
  2. 2.Declaration that the Warrants of Attachment dated 4.4.2025 and the Proclamation of attachment/repossession/distrain of movable property Notice dated 8.4.2025 are irregular, null and void ab initio
  3. 3.Stay of execution of the Judgment delivered on 12th February 2025, subject to order No. 1 above
  4. 4.Costs to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 42 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 21 Rule 9A
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 22 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 21 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 44(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 1B
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024Rule 73(2)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (17)

  • Matata & Another v Rono & Another
    [2024] KEHC 2799 (KLR)
  • Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
    [1979] KECA 22 (KLR)
  • National Industrial Credit Bank Ltd v Aquinas Francis Wasike & another
    [2006] KECA 333 (KLR)
  • Focin Motorcycle Co. Limited v Ann Wambui Wangui & another
    [2018] KEHC 8358 (KLR)
  • Abdi v Ahmed
    [2024] KEHC 11514 (KLR)
  • Menengai Rolling Mills Limited & another v Blue Nile Wire Products Limited & another
    [2019] KEHC 12328 (KLR)
  • Mackenzie (Kenya) Ltd v Pharmico Ltd
    [1976] KEHC 7 (KLR)
  • Trans Africa Energy Ltd v Alten Renewable Energy Developments Africa Bv & Others
    [2024] KEHC 7517 (KLR)
  • James Wangalwa & Another v Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
    [2012] KEHC 1094 (KLR)
  • Silverstein v Chesoni
    [2002] 1 KLR 867
  • Mukuma v Abuoga
    (1988) KLR 645
  • Landmark Port Converyors Limited v Buzeki Enterprises Limited & Another
    [2019] KEHC 570 (KLR)
  • Sokhi International (K) Ltd v Giro Commercial Bank Ltd
    (2006) eKLR
  • Evans v Rival Granite Quarries Ltd
    (1910) 2KB979
  • Blackwood Hodge (Kenya) Ltd v Lead Gasoline Tank Cleaning Sam and Chase (K) Ltd
    [1986] KEHC 57 (KLR)
  • Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd v Kinyanjui Njuguna & Co. Advocates & another
    [2020] KEHC 2628 (KLR)
  • Wilson v Church (No. 2)
    (1879) 12 Ch D 454
On appeal from
Nyahururu Chief Magistrate's Employment and Labour Relations Court (CMELRC)
Nyahururu CMELRC No. E010 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 73(2) of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024 read with Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Olkalou Dairy (2016) Ltd v Churchill Rombosia Kimwanga & another (Appeal E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2838 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Nakuru ELRCA No. E012 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2838/eng@2025-10-22

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