https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1562

Mugwika & 7 others v Ruiri Farmers Co-operative Society Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 50 of 2018) [2026] KEELRC 1562 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1562 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru Employment and Labour Relations Cause 50 of 2018 SC Rutto, J June 4, 2026 Between Anthony Mbaabu Mugwika & 7 others Respondent and Ruiri Farmers Co-operative Society Limited Applicant Ruling 1.The Respondent/Applicant has moved this Court by way of the Notice of Motion dated 21st November 2025, seeking the following orders:1.Spent.2.Spent.3.The decree herein dated 29/5/2019 be amended to accord with the judgment herein dated 6/2/2019, in the aspects of the principal sum and interests.4.The premature, illegal, fraudulent and irregular transfer of L.R No. Kiirua/Ruiri/8891, 8892 and 8893 out of the 19 plots created by order dated 5/5/2022 to the 2nd Claimant Ann Kendi Ndegwa be cancelled and 3 parcels of land be reverted to the ownership of the Respondent herein, Ruiri Farmers Co-operative Society Limited.5.The true and accurate decretal sum due to the Claimants be verified, established and decreed for the avoidance of doubt in future.6.Costs be provided for. 2.The Notice of Motion is premised on the grounds set out on its face and is supported by the Affidavit sworn by Fredrick Mworia Gituampia, the Chairman of the Applicant. 3.Mr. Mworia deposes that the 1st Claimant served as the Applicant/Respondent’s Secretary/Manager, and consequently its Chief Executive Officer, until March 2025. He contends that this created a serious conflict of interest, resulting in the Applicant’s management being kept unaware of most of the pleadings and proceedings in this matter. 4.He further avers that all the Claimants were in active employment with the Applicant both at the commencement and conclusion of the suit, and that the judgment delivered on 6th February 2019 did not award interest. According to him, the decree extracted on 29th May 2019 nevertheless imposed interest at the rate of 14% per annum, despite there being no basis for such an award in the judgment. He states that, as a consequence, the decretal sum has nearly doubled over time without justification. 5.Mr. Mworia further contends that the principal amount reflected in the decree is premised on the erroneous assumption that the Claimants received no salary whatsoever between 2001 and 2017, a period spanning 16 years. 6.He further states that, by an order dated 5th May 2022, the Court directed that L.R. No. Kiirua/Ruiri/5455 be subdivided into 19 plots measuring 50 by 100 feet each, with the remaining portion and the 19 plots to be valued and sold by the Applicant for purposes of settling the decretal sum. 7.According to Mr. Mworia, no such sale was undertaken by the Applicant, nor was any attachment effected through the registration of a prohibitory order as required by law. He alleges that, on or about 8th October 2024, the 2nd Claimant, Anne Kendi Ndegwa, who was then serving as the Applicant’s cashier, unlawfully procured the transfer of L.R. Nos. Kiirua/Ruiri/8891, 8892 and 8893 into her name without any lawful basis. 8.He states that, according to the Government Valuer’s Report prepared pursuant to the order of 5th May 2022, the aggregate value of the 3 parcels transferred to the 2nd Claimant is Kshs. 5,100,000, which represents nearly half of the principal decretal amount. 9.Mr. Mworia further contends that the application for execution filed on 11th November 2024, more than one month after the said transfers, and the prohibitory order subsequently issued therefrom, failed to account for or credit any portion of the decretal sum as having been satisfied through the transfer of the 3parcels. 10.In Mr. Mworia’s view, this is a reap off of the Applicant and its poor peasant farmers and not a genuine quest for justice. 11.The Claimants opposed the Notice of Motion through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 23rd April 2026 by Daniel Kaume M’Ataya, the 4th Claimant. 12.Mr. Kaume contends that the application is redundant, legally untenable, and constitutes an attempt to re-litigate issues that have already been conclusively determined by the Court. 13.He further avers that the parties entered into a consent dated 1st December 2025, compromising prayers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the application dated 21st November 2025, which consent was subsequently adopted as an order of the Court on 2nd December 2025. 14.Mr. Kaume further states that the judgment delivered on 6th February 2019 was founded upon an audit report filed on 1st January 2019 pursuant to directions issued in the Court’s ruling of 7th November 2018. He avers that the audit report expressly quantified the amount due to the Claimants at Kshs. 10,571,510.00. Accordingly, having consented to align the decree with the judgment, the correct decretal amount is already ascertainable from both the Court record and the Applicant’s own consent. 15.He further deposes, on the advice of counsel which he believes to be true, that prayer 5 of the application is a disguised attempt to obtain a review of, or otherwise reopen, the judgment through indirect means. He contends that the Applicant is effectively inviting the Court to re-audit and re-examine figures that were conclusively settled more than 7 years ago, notwithstanding that no appeal was lodged and no review was sought within a reasonable time. 16.Mr. Kaume maintains that, following the amendment of the decree to bring it into conformity with the judgment, the sum of Kshs. 10,571,510.00 stands as the definitive principal decretal amount. Submissions 17.The Motion was canvassed by way of written submissions. Only the Claimants filed written submissions, which the Court has duly considered. Analysis and Determination 18.The record bears that, by a consent dated 1st December 2025, the parties compromised prayers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion. 19.In essence, the parties consented to have the decree dated 29th May 2019 amended so as to conform with the judgment in respect of both the principal sum and the issue of interest. 20.The parties further consented to have the transfer of L.R. Nos. Kiirua/Ruiri/8891, 8892 and 8893 to the 2nd Claimant, Anne Kendi Ndegwa, cancelled and the said parcels be reverted to the ownership of the Applicant. 21.In light of the foregoing, it is apparent that the singular issue remaining for determination by this Court is prayer 5 of the Notice of Motion, which seeks the verification and ascertainment of the true and accurate decretal sum payable to the Claimants. 22.In addressing that issue, it is imperative to revisit the judgment delivered on 6th February 2019. At paragraph 3 thereof, the Court made the following finding;“The Claimants proved on balance of probabilities that they are owed sums due as salary arrears. The tabulation presented to court on 1st February 2019 sets out the itemized amounts each of the 8 Claimants is to receive. The Respondent is therefore liable to pay salary as shown in the suit report and the tabulation made before the Court. The said tabulation filed on 1st February 2019 shall form part of the judgment of this Court. The Claimants are also entitled to costs of the suit.” 23.The record further bears that a tabulation was filed in Court on 1st February 2019, setting out a breakdown of the amounts due to each of the 8 Claimants, the aggregate sum being Kshs. 10,571,510/-. 24.It is noteworthy that the said tabulation was filed pursuant to the Court’s Ruling of 7th November 2018, wherein the auditors were directed to provide a detailed breakdown of the amounts comprising the total sum of Kshs. 10,571,510/- found to be due to the Claimants. 25.Indeed, it was on the basis of those tabulations that the Court incorporated the figures into its judgment and held the Applicant liable to pay the stated amounts. 26.Accordingly, the Court finds that the true and accurate decretal sum payable to the Claimants is Kshs. 10,571,510/-, the same having been expressly adopted and affirmed through the judgment of the Court. 27.Each party shall bear its own costs in respect of the instant Notice of Motion. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.STELLA RUTTOJUDGEIn the presence of:For the Claimants/Respondents - Mr. MuthomiFor the Respondent/Applicant - Ms. Kajuju instructed by Mr. MwaraniaCourt Assistant - QabaleORDERIn view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court had been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.STELLA RUTTOJUDGE