Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Adhiambo & 5 others [2025] KEELRC 2079 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 2079 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Panel
- MA Onyango
- Case number
- Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017 of 2023
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Panel
- MA Onyango
- Case number
- Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017 of 2023
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the trial magistrate erred in failing to certify the appellant's applications as urgent, given the risk of dissipation of funds and the clear evidence of overpayment. However, the substantive claims for refund were determined based on the test suit, where it was established that the 1st respondents had received and utilized excess terminal dues, making them liable to refund the appellant. The 2nd respondents (financial institutions) were not liable as they no longer held the funds at the time of service of freezing orders. The court adopted the findings of the test suit and entered judgment against the 1st respondents for the specific sums overpaid, dismissing the claims against the 2nd respondents with costs to be paid by the 1st respondents. The appeals were thus allowed in part, with the suits compromised in accordance with the judgment.
Court disposition
Appeals allowed in part; judgment entered against 1st respondents for overpaid sums; claims against 2nd respondents dismissed with costs to be paid by 1st respondents; suits compromised and terminated.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Yvette Sally Adhiambo in the sum of KES 436070.56.
- Case against Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd in E074/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Yvette Sally Adhiambo.
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Milka Anyango Otieno in the sum of KES 441220.41.
- Case against Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd in E075/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Milka Anyango Otieno.
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Kimberly Birech in the sum of KES 422458.
- Case against The Co-operative Bank Kenya Ltd in E077/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Kimberly Birech.
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Grace Wambui Maina in the sum of KES 530481.42.
- Case against Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd in E078/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Grace Wambui Maina.
- Appellant to bear own costs of the appeal.
- CMELRC Cause Nos. E074, E075, E077, and E078 of 2023 deemed compromised and terminated with no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd
AppellantYvette Sally Adhiambo
RespondentStima DT Sacco Society Ltd
RespondentGrace Wambui Maina
RespondentKimberly Birech
RespondentThe Co-operative Bank Kenya Ltd
RespondentMilka Anyango Otieno
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Judgment Sum Against Yvette Sally Adhiambo: KES 436,070.56
- Judgment Sum Against Milka Anyango Otieno: KES 441,220.41
- Judgment Sum Against Kimberly Birech: KES 422,458
- Judgment Sum Against Grace Wambui Maina: KES 530,481.42
03
Procedural history
Posture
Employment and Labour Relations Appeal / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the trial court erred in declining to certify the appellant's applications as urgent.
- 02
Whether the appellant was entitled to interim orders pending hearing of the applications.
- 03
Whether the appellant is entitled to recover sums erroneously paid to the respondents as terminal dues.
- 04
Whether the 2nd respondents (financial institutions) are liable for the refund of the overpaid sums.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that the trial magistrate failed to appreciate the urgency of the applications, as there was a real risk that the respondents would dissipate the erroneously overpaid funds before the matter could be heard. The appellant contended that sufficient grounds for urgency were set out, including the irreparable loss that would be suffered if the funds were utilized. The appellant further submitted that the trial court failed to consider the grounds in support of urgency and applied the wrong legal principles in denying interim injunctive relief.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the trial court exercised its discretion properly in declining to certify the applications as urgent. They contended that the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for urgency or entitlement to interim orders. The 2nd respondents (financial institutions) maintained that they were not liable as the funds had already been withdrawn by the 1st respondents before any freezing orders could be effected.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
A party seeking interim injunctive relief must demonstrate urgency, a prima facie case, and risk of irreparable harm if the orders are not granted.
- 02
Employment and Labour Relations Court Act; Magistrates' Courts Act
Jurisdiction of the subordinate courts is limited by pecuniary thresholds; claims exceeding such limits must be filed in the appropriate superior court.
- 03
Common law principles of unjust enrichment; relevant Kenyan case law
A party who receives funds in error is liable to refund the same to the payer, subject to proof of overpayment and utilization of funds.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the trial magistrate erred in failing to certify the appellant's applications as urgent, given the risk of dissipation of funds and the clear evidence of overpayment. However, the substantive claims for refund were determined based on the test suit, where it was established that the 1st respondents had received and utilized excess terminal dues, making them liable to refund the appellant. The 2nd respondents (financial institutions) were not liable as they no longer held the funds at the time of service of freezing orders. The court adopted the findings of the test suit and entered judgment against the 1st respondents for the specific sums overpaid, dismissing the claims against the 2nd respondents with costs to be paid by the 1st respondents. The appeals were thus allowed in part, with the suits compromised in accordance with the judgment.
Obiter and limits
- The use of a test suit to determine multiple related claims promotes judicial efficiency and consistency in outcomes.
- Courts must exercise discretion judiciously when determining urgency, especially where there is a risk of dissipation of funds.
Court disposition
Appeals allowed in part; judgment entered against 1st respondents for overpaid sums; claims against 2nd respondents dismissed with costs to be paid by 1st respondents; suits compromised and terminated.
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Yvette Sally Adhiambo in the sum of KES 436070.56.
- Case against Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd in E074/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Yvette Sally Adhiambo.
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Milka Anyango Otieno in the sum of KES 441220.41.
- Case against Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd in E075/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Milka Anyango Otieno.
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Kimberly Birech in the sum of KES 422458.
- Case against The Co-operative Bank Kenya Ltd in E077/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Kimberly Birech.
- Judgment entered for the appellant against Grace Wambui Maina in the sum of KES 530481.42.
- Case against Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd in E078/2023 dismissed with costs to be paid by Grace Wambui Maina.
- Appellant to bear own costs of the appeal.
- CMELRC Cause Nos. E074, E075, E077, and E078 of 2023 deemed compromised and terminated with no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Employment and Labour Relations Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Judgment
Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Adhiambo & 5 others (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017, E018, E019 & E020 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2079 (KLR) (10 July 2025) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 2079 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret
Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E017, E018, E019 & E020 of 2023 (Consolidated)
MA Onyango, J
July 10, 2025
Between
Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd
Claimant
and
Yvette Sally Adhiambo
1st Respondent
Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd
2nd Respondent
As consolidated with
Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E018 of 2023
Between
Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd
Claimant
and
Grace Wambui Maina
1st Respondent
Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd
2nd Respondent
As consolidated with
Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E019 of 2023
Between
Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd
Claimant
and
Kimberly Birech
1st Respondent
The Co-operative Bank Kenya Ltd
2nd Respondent
As consolidated with
Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E020 of 2023
Between
Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd
Claimant
and
Milka Anyango Otieno
1st Respondent
Stima DT Sacco Society Ltd
2nd Respondent
Judgment
1. The Appellant herein was the Claimant in Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E074 of 2023; E075 of 2023; E077 of 2023; and, E078 of 2023 wherein it had sued the Respondents herein seeking refund of monies erroneously paid to them arising from an error in the payment of their terminal dues in excess of their terminal dues.
2. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E074 of 2023 the Appellant sued Yvette Sally Adhiambo and Stima DT SACCO Society Ltd as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively for refund of Kshs. 436,070. 56.
3. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E075 of 2023 the Appellant sued Milka Anyango Otieno and Stima DT SACCO Society Ltd as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively for refund of Kshs. 441,220. 41.
4. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E077 of 2023 the Appellant sued Kimberly Birech and The Co-Operative Bank Kenya Ltd as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively for refund of Kshs. 422,458.
5. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E078 of 2023 the Appellant sued Grace Wambui Maina and Stima DT SACCO Society Ltd as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively for refund of Kshs. 530,481. 42.
6. The appeals arise from the ruling of Hon. Rosemary Onkoba dated 7th August, 2023 in which she declined to certify the Appellants applications urgent on 2nd August, 2023 in all the suits.
7. The grounds of appeal in all the files which are identical are that:a.The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by failing to certify the application dated 2nd August 2023 as urgent, yet sufficient reasons had been set out.b.The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in the manner she exercised her discretion not to certify the matter as urgent in view of the fact that no reasons were set out for such refusal in light of the circumstances of the case.c.The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the grounds in support of the urgency set out in the Notice of Motion dated 2nd August 2023. d.The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to issue a temporary injunction on the application dated 2nd August 2023, yet there was clear evidence that the Appellant would suffer irreparable damage if the 1st Respondent was to utilize the erroneously overpaid funds amounting to Kshs. 530,481. 42. e.The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in failing to appreciate the weight of the legal issues raised by the Appellant in the application dated 2nd August 2023 for interim orders.f.The Learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact in applying the wrong principles of law in denying the temporary injunctions sought in the application dated 2md August 2023.
8. The Appellant prayed for orders that the orders of Hon. Rosemary Onkoba dated 2nd August, 2023 be set aside and the Appellant be granted interim orders pending hearing and determination of the applications dated 2nd August, 2023. The Appellant further prayed that costs of the appeal be awarded to the Appellant.
9. The Appeals were filed together with applications seeking similar orders as had been declined by the trial court which were granted by this Court presided over by the Duty Judge in Kakamega Hon. Lady Justice Jemimah Keli on 31st August, 2023 as follows:1. That The Application dated 28th August, 2023 is certified urgent to be heard on priority basis.2. That An interim order is issued to the 2nd respondent pending the hearing of the application interpartes to withhold any monies it holds in the 1st Respondent Account No. 015008 not exceeding 436,070. 56. 3.That The application be served within 3 days for response in 14 days. The applicant is at liberty to file reply thereafter.4. That Hearing interpartes on the 20th September 2023 at ELRC ELDORET
10. At the time the Appellant filed these suits in the Chief Magistrates Court in Eldoret it had also filed a similar suit in this court being ELRC Eldoret Cause No. E019 of 2023 against Oliver Jesse Otieno and DT SACCO Society Ltd in which it sought refund of Kshs. 409,359. 44. the suit was filed herein in respect of Oliver Jesse Otieno the 1st Respondent, whose gross salary was above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subordinate courts unlike the claims against the other former employees of the Appellant whose claims were within the pecuniary jurisdiction on the Magistrates’ courts.
11. In view of the fact that all five suits arose out of the same course of action the parties agreed that Eldoret ELRC Cause No. E019 of 2023 Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Oliver Jesse Otieno and DT SACCO Society Ltd be selected as a test suit and the determination therein be applied to all the suits herein.
12. The decision in No. E019 of 2023 Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Oliver Jesse Otieno and DT SACCO Society Ltd has now been delivered as follows:“On the claim against the 2nd Respondent, I find that the Claimant has not proved its case against the 2nd Respondent as there is evidence on record that as at the time it was served with the court orders directing the freezing of the 1st Respondent’s account, the 1st Respondent had already utilized the excess funds.In the end, I find that the 1st Respondent was overpaid a sum of Kshs 409,359. 44 by the Claimant and I enter judgment in favor of the Claimant against the 1st Respondent in the sum of Kshs 409,359. 44. "
13. The same decision is adopted and applied in the suits herein and judgment is entered as hereunder.
14. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E074 of 2023 Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Yvette Sally Adhiambo and Stima DT SACCO Society Ltdi.Judgment is entered for the Appellant against the 1st Respondent in the sum of Kshs. Kshs. 436,070. 56ii.The case against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent to be paid by the 1st Respondent
15. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E075 of 2023 Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Milka Anyango Otieno and Stima DT SACCO Society Ltdi.The case against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent to be paid by the 1st Respondentii.Judgment is entered for the Appellant against the 1st Respondent in the sum of Kshs. Kshs. 441,220. 41
16. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E077 of 2023 Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Kimberly Birech and The Co-Operative Bank Kenya Ltdi.The case against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent to be paid by the 1st Respondentii.Judgment is entered for the Appellant against the 1st Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 422,458.
17. In Eldoret CMELRC Cause Numbers E078 of Eldotec Consultancy Services Ltd v Grace Wambui Maina and Stima DT SACCO Society Ltdi.The case against the 2nd Respondent is dismissed with costs to the 2nd Respondent to be paid by the 1st Respondentii.Judgment is entered for the Appellant against the 1st Respondent in the sum of Kshs. 530,481. 42. iii.Appellant shall bear his own costs to the appeal.
18. CMELRC Cause No. E074 of 2023; CMELRC Cause No. E075 of 2023; CMELRC Cause No. E077 of 2023; and, CMELRC Cause No. E078 of 2023 are deemed to be compromised in accordance with this judgement and are accordingly terminated with no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment will be submitted to the Chief Magistrates Court for placement in each of the files and the Chief Magistrate shall mark the said suits duly terminated.
19. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND VIRTUALLY AT ELDORET ON THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025. MAUREEN ONYANGO.JUDGE
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.