Kenya Judgment

Employment and Labour Relations Court · Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Mutuah v Tracom Services Ltd; Gichuru & another (Objector) [2025] KEELRC 3274 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Objectors failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they were the legal or beneficial owners of the proclaimed vehicles: the sale agreements' bona fides could not be ascertained, payment was unexplained or unproven, no transfer of ownership was effected despite statutory requirements, and the vehicles remained registered in the Respondent's name.

Court disposition

Motion dated 3 September 2025 dismissed as without merit

Orders

  • The Motion dated 3 September 2025 is dismissed with costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Rose Wanja Mutuah

Claimant Counsel: Mukunga Wathome & Co. Advocates

Tracom Services Ltd

Respondent Counsel: Kwamboka Marie & Associates Advocates

Humphrey Gichuru

Objector Counsel: Mackenzie & Wesonga Law Advocates

Kevin Wainaina

Objector Counsel: Mackenzie & Wesonga Law Advocates

Amounts and remedies

  • Sale Price of Motor Vehicle KCB Xxx M (gichuru): KES 1,000,000
  • Deposit Paid by Humphrey Gichuru on 4 February 2025: KES 500,000
  • Sale Price of Motor Vehicle KBS Xxx U (wainaina): KES 600,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Employment and Labour Relations Claim – Objector Application Against Execution by Proclamation of Motor Vehicles / Ruling on Motion Dated 3 September 2025 (post Decree Execution Stage)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Objectors contended that they were legal and beneficial owners of the motor vehicles, having purchased them from the Respondent, and were innocent purchasers without notice of any claim.
Respondent
The Claimant contended that the auctioneers found both vehicles still registered in the Respondent's name, the Objectors produced no evidence of full payment of purchase prices, and Humphrey Gichuru was closely associated with the Respondent having been one of her managers.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court's analysis in the Ruling (Mutuah v Tracom Services Ltd, Cause E767 of 2021)

    The party asserting ownership in objection proceedings bears the burden of proving legal or beneficial ownership on a balance of probabilities.

  2. 02

    Section 9 of the Traffic Act

    Transfer of motor vehicle ownership must be registered within 14 days.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Objectors failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that they were the legal or beneficial owners of the proclaimed vehicles: the sale agreements' bona fides could not be ascertained, payment was unexplained or unproven, no transfer of ownership was effected despite statutory requirements, and the vehicles remained registered in the Respondent's name.

Court disposition

Motion dated 3 September 2025 dismissed as without merit

  • The Motion dated 3 September 2025 is dismissed with 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.

Source document

Employment and Labour Relations Court

Judgment

[2025] KEELRC 3274 (KLR)

Mutuah v Tracom Services Ltd; Gichuru & another (Objector) (Cause E767 of 2021) [2025] KEELRC 3274 (KLR) (20 November 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 3274 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Cause E767 of 2021 S Radido, J November 20, 2025 Between Rose Wanja Mutuah Claimant and Tracom Services Ltd Respondent and Humphrey Gichuru Objector Kevin Wainaina Objector Ruling 1. Through a Motion dated 3 September 2025, Humphrey Gichuru and Kevin Wainaina (the Objectors) seek orders: i. … ii. … iii. … iv. … v. … vi. The Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the subject motor vehicles are not the property of the judgment debtor and are therefore not liable to attachment or sale in satisfaction of the decretal sum. vii. This Honourable Court be pleased to set aside and/or revoke the proclamation notice dated 4 th July 2025. viii. Costs of the application be provided for.

2. The grounds in support of the Motion were that the Claimant caused to be proclaimed motor vehicles registration numbers KCB xxxM Chevrolet and KBS xxxU Landrover Freelander on 4 July 2025; the Objectors were legal and beneficial owners of motor vehicles registration numbers KCB xxxM Chevrolet and KBS xxxU Landrover Freelander respectively having purchased the same from the Respondent and that the Objectors were innocent purchasers without notice.

3. The Claimant filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the Motion on 29 September 2025.

4. In the affidavit, the Claimant deponed that the auctioneers she had instructed had ascertained that the 2 motor vehicles were still registered in the Respondent’s name; the Objectors had not produced any evidence of payment of purchase prices and that one of the Objectors, Humphrey Gichuru was closely associated with the Respondent, having been one of her managers during employment.

5. The Court directed the parties on 30 September 2025 to file and exchange submissions.

6. The Objectors filed their submissions on 14 November 2025. The Claimant filed her submissions on 19 November 2025.

7. The Court has considered the Motion, affidavits and submissions and makes the following determinations.

8. One, the Respondent allegedly entered into a sale agreement with Humphrey Gichuru in respect to motor vehicle registration number KCB xxxM on 13 June 2023.

9. Two, the sale price was indicated as Kshs 1,000,000/- to be paid in two instalments.

10. A copy of the Respondent’s bank statement placed before the Court indicates that this Objector paid the Respondent Kshs 500,000/- on 4 February 2025. There is no explanation in the supporting affidavit why it took nearly 2 years to make payment of the deposit.

11. The Objector did not demonstrate in the supporting affidavit a nexus between the payment in 2025 and the sale agreement in 2023.

12. Three, there is no evidence that transfer of ownership was conducted.

13. Four, under section 9 of the Traffic Act , transfer of ownership should be registered within 14 days. It is noteworthy that the motor vehicle is still registered in the name of the Respondent.

14. Five, the Respondent allegedly sold motor vehicle registration number KBS xxxU to Kevin Wainaina on 17 October 2018.

15. Six, there is no explanation why, 7 years down the line, the transfer of ownership has not been done. This Objector has not placed before the Court any evidence that he paid the purchase price of Kshs 600,000/-.

16. The bona fide of the sale agreements cannot be ascertained, and the Court can conclude that the Objectors have not proved on a balance of probabilities that they are the legal or beneficial owners of the proclaimed motor vehicles. Orders 17. The Motion dated 3 September 2025 is found without merit and is dismissed with costs. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025. RADIDO STEPHEN, MCIARB

JUDGE Appearances For Claimant Mukunga Wathome & Co. Advocates For Respondent Kwamboka Marie & Associates Advocates For Objectors Mackenzie & Wesonga Law Advocates Court Assistant Wangu

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Traffic Act, section 9

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.