Ombajo v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK); Sankara Auctioneers (Auctioneer) (Cause 224 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 3701 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Once a judgment debt, costs and interest are fully paid, a Kenyan court's job is done — leftover tax and fees disputes must go to KRA or taxation, not the judge.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Satisfaction of the decree and functus officio
The decretal amount, taxed costs and interest had been paid; the Court had reached the limit of its jurisdiction and was functus officio, justifying stay of further execution and closure of the file
The claim was filed in 2014, dismissed, reinstated by the Court of Appeal with compensation assessed at Kshs. 5,398,687. The Respondent paid the decretal sum, costs of Kshs. 340,743.75 and interest of Kshs. 767,983, as confirmed in the Claimant's own submissions. With the decree as captured in the warrant satisfied, secondary disputes must go to other fora.
Jurisdiction over the PAYE dispute
The dispute over the amount remitted to KRA as PAYE is a secondary income tax dispute outside the Court's jurisdiction
The Court, applying its own earlier decision in Kioko Joseph v Bamburi Cement Limited, endorsed by the Court of Appeal, held that disagreements over assessment and remittance of PAYE belong to the KRA, the body charged with assessing and collecting revenue. Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act was distinguished: the Court is not interpreting tax liability but had simply ensured satisfaction of its judgment.
Auctioneer's costs
The Auctioneer's demand of Kshs. 800,000 is excessive and disputed and must be subjected to taxation under the Auctioneers Rules 1997
The Auctioneer demanded fees without taxing his bill. The Court held that the proper course is taxation of the bill under the Auctioneers Rules, with an appeal available to this Court from any taxation ruling. This is a matter for the taxation process, not for determination in this application.
Legal principles established
#- Disputed PAYE tax on a court award is a tax dispute primarily within the mandate of the KRA and its Income Tax Appeals Tribunal, not the executing court
- Once the decretal amount, costs and interest captured in a warrant of attachment have been paid, the executing court has reached the limit of its jurisdiction and becomes functus officio
- An Auctioneer is entitled to have costs assessed in accordance with the Auctioneer Rules 1997 rather than make an unregulated demand
Court orders
#- 1.Further execution of the warrant of attachment issued on 23rd September 2025 is stayed
- 2.The Auctioneer is restrained from attaching the Respondent's property on the basis of the said warrant
- 3.The file shall be marked as closed
- 4.Secondary disputes may be placed before the relevant dispute resolution mechanisms, under the applicable procedural laws
- 5.No order on the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; decree-execution jurisdiction under Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (invoked by the claimant)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ombajo v Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Kenya (ICPAK); Sankara Auctioneers (Auctioneer) (Cause 224 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 3701 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Claim filed in 2014). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/3701/eng@2025-12-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.