[2023] KEELRC 507 (KLR)
The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed the applicant's motion for garnishee orders to enforce costs awarded by the Court of Appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce such orders. The court found that the applicant should have sought enforcement from the Court of Appeal itself. Additionally,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELRC 507 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Silas Ashihundu Mbwabi (As the Legal Representative of Paul Mbwabi, Deceased); Respondent: Samuel Muhati Liguyani
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 63 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Execution Application / Ruling on Garnishee and Enforcement Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- S Radido
- Legal Topics
- Garnishee Orders, Enforcement of Costs, Jurisdiction of Court, Execution Proceedings
- 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
Silas Ashihundu Mbwabi (As the Legal Representative of Paul Mbwabi, Deceased)
Applicant
Samuel Muhati Liguyani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Execution Application / Ruling on Garnishee and Enforcement Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment and Labour Relations Court has jurisdiction to enforce costs orders issued by the Court of Appeal.
- 2 Whether the garnishee orders sought by the applicant are merited in light of previous court orders regarding the respondent's bank account.
- 3 Whether the extracted order of December 5, 2022, directing payment to the applicant's advocates, accurately reflects the court's orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed the applicant's motion for garnishee orders to enforce costs awarded by the Court of Appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce such orders. The court found that the applicant should have sought enforcement from the Court of Appeal itself. Additionally, the court noted that previous orders had already directed the disposition of the respondent's funds held by the garnishee, and if those orders were complied with, the present application was rendered moot. The court further clarified that the extracted order of December 5, 2022, purporting to direct payment to the applicant's advocates, did not reflect any actual order made by...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The motion dated August 5, 2022 is dismissed.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Mbwabi (As the Legal Representative of Paul Mbwabi - Deceased) v Liguyani (Cause 63 of 2016) [2023] KEELRC 507 (KLR) (1 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELRC 507 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Cause 63 of 2016
S Radido, J
March 1, 2023
Between
Silas Ashihundu Mbwabi (As the Legal Representative of Paul Mbwabi, Deceased)
Claimant
and
Samuel Muhati Liguyani
Respondent
Ruling
1. On June 15, 2021, the Court of Appeal granted leave to Samuel Muhati Liguyani (the respondent) to appeal against the judgment of the court delivered on April 16, 2020.
2. The Court of Appeal also ordered the respondent to pay Silas Ashihundu Mbwabi (the instant applicant) Kshs 20,000/- costs within 14 days.
3. The respondent did not pay the costs and on August 17, 2022, the applicant moved this court seeking orders:(1)That costs in the sum of Kshs 20,000/- awarded to the claimant as against the respondent by the Court of Appeal at Kisumu in Civil Application No E076 of 2021, be realised by way of an order directing Equity Bank Ltd (the garnishee herein) to deduct the said sum of Kshs 20,000/- from the already frozen bank account number XXX of Samuel Muhati Liguyani (the respondent/judgment debtor herein) and pay it to the claimant through the firm of Balusi & Smart Advocates as advocates on record for the claimant.(2)That upon the garnishee deducting and paying the said sum of Kshs 20,000/- to the claimant as ordered above, the balance in the said bank account number XXX of Samuel Muhati Liguyani (the respondent/judgment debtor herein) to remain frozen pending further orders of this honourable court.(3)That the costs of this execution application be provided for.
4. The court directed the applicant to serve the application and arguments were taken on January 24, 2023. The parties made oral submissions.
5. The court has considered the application, supporting affidavit and oral submissions and come to the view that the application has no merit for two reasons.
6. First, the court delivered a ruling on May 25, 2021 directing Equity Bank Ltd to pay the applicant Kshs 942,613. 90 from the respondent’s account, and further that the balance of the decretal sum be deposited into an interest-earning account in the names of the advocates on record.
7. If the orders were complied with, then it means that the garnishee orders have been overtaken by events.
8. However, if the orders were not complied with, then the blame must lie squarely at the feet of the advocates (there is material on record suggesting the advocates did not cooperate in the opening of the joint bank account).
9. Lastly, this court is not seized with powers to enforce costs orders issued by the Court of Appeal. The applicant ought to have moved the Court of Appeal for appropriate orders considering that it is a condition set by that court which had not been met by the respondent.
10. This court notes that the Court of Appeal had directed the respondent to file a notice of appeal within 14 days of June 15, 2021, but a notice of appeal was only lodged with the court on July 27, 2022.
11. Before concluding, the court reiterates that the order extracted out of the proceedings of December 5, 2022 purporting to direct the garnishee to pay the firm of Balusi & Smart Advocates the sum of Kshs 1,107,572. 90 does not reflect the orders made by the court on that particular date.
12. This court did not issue any such order and the order as extracted is, therefore, invalid.
13. The court further reiterates and draws the attention of the parties to the orders issued on May 25, 2021, which directed how the amounts kept by the garnishee on the account of the respondent were to be dealt with. These orders have not been reviewed or set aside.
14. The motion dated August 5, 2022 is dismissed. Costs in the cause.
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN KISUMU ON THIS 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARBJUDGEAppearancesFor applicant Balusi & Smart AdvocatesFor respondent Omondi, Abande & Co AdvocatesCourt Assistant Chrispo Aura