Christopher Were v Ultra Limited & another [2017] KEELRC 741

REPUBLIC OF KENYA EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT AT NAIROBI AT NAIROBI CAUSE NO. 109 OF 2012 CHRISTOPHER WERE…….....…..……..CLAIMANT/DECREE HOLDER VERSUS ULTRA LIMITED………….....…RESPONDENT/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR AND JEWEL HOLDINGS LTD………………………OBJECTOR/APPLICANT RULING 1. The objector herein raises equitable right over the goods proclaimed by the decree holder herein. The basis of objection is that the objector was the judgement debtor’s landlord and the goods proclaimed were used to offset rent arrears amounting to Kshs 6,000,000 owed to the objector. 2. The objector has not exhibited any document or memorandum showing there existed landlord/tenant relationship between itself and the decree holder. Further, the objector has not exhibited any demand for arrears of rent and for what period served on the decree holder. 3. The court has further not been shown under what circumstances the goods proclaimed were used to settle the alleged rent arrears. That is to say whether the goods were pledged or were distrained for rent under the Distress for Rent Act. 4. The court further frowns upon the fact that counsel for the judgement debtor is the same as counsel for the objector. This is a clear case of conflict of interest and unprofessional conduct on the part of the counsel. 5. The court therefore cannot help reach the conclusion that these objection proceedings are brought in bad faith and merely intended to prevent the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of his judgement. The proceedings are therefore dismissed with costs and execution of the decree of the court ordered to proceed. 6. It is so ordered. Dated at Nairobi this 17th day of March, 2017 Abuodha J. N.

page 1 of 2