https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2242

Kathure v Moi Teaching & Referal Hospital & 3 others (Cause 359 of 2016) [2026] KEELRC 2242 (KLR) (30 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 2242 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu Cause 359 of 2016 Nzioki wa Makau, J July 30, 2026 Between Edith Munyua Kathure Claimant and Moi Teaching & Referal Hospital 1st Respondent Dr Wilson Aruasa 2nd Respondent Mrs Anne Chemworsio 3rd Respondent Mr Thomas Ngetich 4th Respondent Ruling 1.The Claimant has moved the Court vide an application dated 22nd April 2026 seeking the following orders:(i)Spent(ii)That this Honourable court be pleased to make an order for both parties to appoint an independent and neutral; accountant to compute the interest payable on the decretal sum of Kshs. 1,503,680/- in clause (d) of the judgement delivered on 18th, July, 2019.(iii)That the said accountant does prepare and file a report in Court detailing the computation of interest from the date the sum became due and payable until payment in full.(iv)That upon receipt of the accountant's report, this Honourable Court be pleased to adopt the same and issue a decree reflecting the correct computation of interest in accordance with clause(d) of the accounting terms as used in the judgement delivered on 18th July 2019.(v)That the cost of this application be provided for 2.The application is premised on the 13 grounds on its face and the Claimant’s supporting affidavit. She contends that the parties have been unable to agree on the methodology for computing interest, that previous execution proceedings revealed discrepancies in the calculations, and that the issue is technical in nature and falls within the court’s jurisdiction in matters relating to execution and satisfaction of its decree. She avers that unless the Court clarifies the computation of interest, she will be denied the fruits of her judgment. She specifically contends that she was not granted the opportunity to explain the basis of her computation of Kshs. 6,656,156.56. Consequently, she urges the Court to allow the application in the interests of justice. 3.In opposition to the application the Respondents filed grounds of opposition dated 8th June 2026. Contending that the issues raised in the application were res judicata the issue of interest having been determined by the Court. They contend that the application is an abuse of court process and should be dismissed. 4.In rejoinder, the Claimant deposes that the application is not res judicata and does not seek to review, vary, set aside or reopen the judgment delivered on 18th July 2019. She states that the judgment awarded the decretal sum together with interest until payment in full which creates a continuing obligation, and that the present application merely seeks an independent and neutral computation of the interest payable under the decree. She avers that a genuine dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the methodology and amount of interest due, which has delayed settlement of the decretal sum. According to the Claimant, the appointment of an independent accountant is a procedural step that would assist the court in accurately quantifying the decretal interest and does not involve determination of any legal issue or usurpation of the court’s judicial function. She further contends that the court retains jurisdiction to supervise and enforce its decrees, that the Respondent’s objection based on res judicata and appeal is misconceived, and that the application has been brought in good faith to facilitate satisfaction of the decree and enable her to enjoy the fruits of the judgment. 5.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Claimant’s Submissions 6.In support of the application the Claimant identifies the following issues for determination:(i)Whether the Court has jurisdiction to appoint an independent accountant to assist in the computation of interest payable under its judgment;(ii)Whether the appointment of an independent accountant is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances of this case;(iii)Whether such appointment would facilitate the just, expeditious and proportionate determination of the dispute; and(iv)Whether interest forms part of the decree and must be computed until payment in full. 7.On the first issue the Claimant submits that the Court retains residual jurisdiction to issue consequential and ancillary orders necessary to give effect to its judgment and ensure that its decree is capable of implementation. She asserts that the court’s duty does not end with the pronouncement of judgment and that it is obligated to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and efficient determination of disputes. She reiterates that the appointment of an independent accountant would not vary, review or set aside the judgment delivered on 18th July 2019, but would merely facilitate its implementation by ascertaining the exact amount payable under the decree. Reliance is placed on Republic v Deputy Registrar, High Court of Kenya, Eldoret & another [2013] eKLR, where the court recognized that the computation of interest pursuant to a decree may properly be undertaken through the court’s administrative and accounting processes under the supervision of the court. She emphasizes that the proposed accountant would merely undertake a technical exercise involving the principal sum, the applicable interest rate, the period for which interest runs, any payments made, and the outstanding balance, while the court would retain ultimate supervisory authority. 8.On whether an independent accountant is necessary, the Claimant submits that the mathematical computation of the amount payable requires an objective and verifiable computation, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflicting calculations and further litigation. She relies on Premier Bag & Cordage Ltd v National Irrigation Board [2014] eKLR, where the court emphasized the necessity of reconciliation and accurate computation of interest and payments under a decree. Reliance is also placed on Kitale Main Millers Ltd v Agricultural Development Corporation [2025] eKLR, where the Court undertook a detailed examination of interest computation and recognized that the determination of interest payable requires precise calculations based on the terms of the decree and payments made. Further reliance is placed on Byron Trustkett Investment Ltd v Sports Stadia Management Board & another [2019] eKLR, in which the court directed the appointment of an accountant to prepare a report for purposes of reconciling accounts, with provision for appointment by the Chairman of ICPAK where the parties could not agree. 9.Concerning whether such appointment would serve expediency and expeditious determination of the suit, she asserts that appointment of an independent accountant would save judicial time, avoid competing computations, provide an objective basis for determining the decretal amount, expedite settlement of the decree, and minimize further applications and unnecessary costs. 10.On the fourth issue the Claimant submits that section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to award interest and determine the period for which it is payable. She asserts that the court should not permit uncertainty regarding the amount payable under its own decree, and that appointment of an independent accountant would assist in giving full effect to the judgment already rendered. Reliance is placed on Ngugi v Ugi [2024] KEHC 14442 (KLR), where the court reaffirmed that once interest has been awarded for a specified period, both the principal sum and the period over which interest runs must be ascertained to achieve complete satisfaction of the decree. Consequently, she urges the court to allow the application as prayed. Respondents’ Submissions 11.On their part the Respondents identify the following issues for determination:(a)Whether this Honourable Court should appoint a private, independent accountant to compute interest on the decree;(b)Whether the computation by the Deputy Registrar at the standard court rate is proper;(c)Whether the application aligns with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act; and(d)Whether the orders sought ought to be granted. 12.On the first issue the Respondents submit that the computation of post-judgment interest is an administrative function of the court ordinarily undertaken by the Deputy Registrar or court accounting officers under judicial supervision. They contend that there is no justification for appointing a private accountant where the exercise involves the straightforward application of a court rate to an undisputed principal sum. Reliance is placed on Mutua (As the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Michael Kareko Gatere) v Co-operative Merchant Bank Ltd & 2 others; Muriuki (Interested Party) [2026] KEHC 1492 (KLR), where the court held that the computation of decretal sums, interest and costs lies within the mandate of the Deputy Registrar and that a court becomes functus officio once it has delivered final judgment. The Respondents further rely on Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 3 others, [2017] eKLR, where the Supreme Court affirmed that a court cannot reopen a final judgment except in exceptional circumstances. They submit that the decree in this matter was delivered on 18th July 2019 and has been the subject of execution, and that the present application improperly seeks to reopen a computation exercise that falls within the statutory mandate of the Deputy Registrar. The Respondents argue that under section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, together with Order 21 rule 8 and Order 49 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, questions relating to the computation and settlement of decretal sums are to be determined within the execution process, with recourse to a judge only by way of reference from the Deputy Registrar. They assert that in the present circumstances the Claimant has not demonstrated that the Deputy Registrar acted outside her mandate or committed an error apparent on the record. 13.On the Deputy Registrar’s computation being proper, the Respondents submit that section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act empowers the court to award interest and, where a decree provides for interest at court rates, the Deputy Registrar is entitled to apply the rate conventionally applied by the court. They contend that the Deputy Registrar correctly applied the court rate, accounted for partial payments made by the Respondents, and arrived at the outstanding balance. They argue that the Claimant’s computation of approximately Kshs. 6.6 million is inconsistent with section 26 because decretal interest is ordinarily simple interest unless the decree expressly provides for compound interest. Reliance is placed on Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd v William Mwangi Nguruki [2014] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that interest at court rates is calculated on a simple and not a compounded basis. The Respondents also rely on National Media Group Ltd v Muya [2025] KEHC 170 (KLR), where the High Court affirmed the same principle. They submit that any challenge to the Deputy Registrar’s computation should be raised within the execution proceedings by way of a formal objection or reference, and not through a fresh application seeking referral to a private accountant. 14.On whether the application aligns with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act, the Respondents submit that an application filed several years after the 2019 decree, seeking to introduce an additional layer of process through a private accountant, is contrary to the overriding objective. Reliance is placed on Mutua v Co-operative Merchant Bank Ltd & 2 others [2026] KEHC 1492 (KLR), where the court, citing Muchanga Investment Ltd v Safari Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 others [2009] eKLR, emphasized that courts should guard against multiplicity of applications and attempts to delay or obstruct the enjoyment of the fruits of a judgment. The Respondents further submit that appointing private accountants in routine execution matters would increase costs, delay execution, and undermine the efficient administration of justice. 15.As for whether the orders sought should be granted, they submit that granting the application would undermine the authority and competence of the court registry. Accordingly, they urge the Court to dismiss the application and direct that execution proceed on the basis of the Deputy Registrar’s computation. Disposition 16.The Claimant’s application is completely misplaced. The issue of costs was determined conclusively by this Court. The rate of interest applicable in disputes before the Court is as granted by the court at the time od delivery of the judgment. The Court has a Taxing Master who is competent to compute and calculate costs due to a party as well as the interest as per the judgment, order and decree of the Court. The Claimant labours under a false notion that she has a better understanding of the applicable rate of interest. The private accountant has no business in court matters and the Court rejects any attempt to circumvent the process under the Civil Procedure Rules. The sole reason this matter has not been closed a decade after it was filed is the Claimant. She has filed numerous applications post judgment. The Respondent has the correct position of the law - the computation of post-judgment interest is an administrative function of the court ordinarily undertaken by the Deputy Registrar or court accounting officers under judicial supervision. The Claimant is not entitled to compound interest. That was never ordered in 2019 nor can it be ordered in an employment dispute. 17.It is hoped the Claimant can accept she can no longer flog the dead horse in an attempt to keep riding it. Litigation must come to an end. In the final analysis the Claimant’s motion is for dismissal. Application dismissed with costs to the Respondent. No application will be filed before this Court in this case unless leave first is sought and obtained from a Judge of this Court prior to any filing.It is so ordered. DATED 30TH JULY 2026 AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2026NZIOKI wa MAKAU, MCIArb.JUDGE