[2017] KEELRC 741 (KLR)
The court found that the objector failed to provide any documentary evidence of a landlord/tenant relationship with the judgment debtor or any proof that the goods were lawfully used to offset rent arrears. The absence of such evidence, combined with the conflict of interest arising from the same counsel...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELRC 741 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Christopher Were; Respondent: Ultra Limited; Applicant: Jewel Holdings Ltd
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 109 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Objection Proceedings / Ruling
- Outcome
- objection dismissed; execution to proceed
- Judges
- DI Wasike
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Judgment, Objection Proceedings, Landlord Tenant Dispute
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christopher Were
Applicant
Ultra Limited
Respondent
Jewel Holdings Ltd
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Objection Proceedings / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the objector has established a valid equitable right over the goods proclaimed by the decree holder.
- 2 Whether there existed a landlord/tenant relationship between the objector and the judgment debtor.
- 3 Whether the goods proclaimed were lawfully used to offset rent arrears.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the objector failed to provide any documentary evidence of a landlord/tenant relationship with the judgment debtor or any proof that the goods were lawfully used to offset rent arrears. The absence of such evidence, combined with the conflict of interest arising from the same counsel representing both the objector and the judgment debtor, led the court to conclude that the objection proceedings were brought in bad faith. Consequently, the court dismissed the objection and allowed execution of the decree to proceed.
Court Disposition
objection dismissed; execution to proceed
Orders
- The objection proceedings are dismissed with costs.
- Execution of the decree of the court is ordered to proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
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.
Judge
Delivered this 17th of March, 2017
Abuodha J. N.
Judge
In the presence of:-
……………………………………………………………for the Claimant and
………………………………………………………………for the Respondent.
Abuodha J. N.
Judge