[2014] KEELRC 566 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd claimant, Mr. Kennedy Ogendi Onyangore, had received full payment of the decretal sum awarded to him by the court, and had withdrawn the funds from his bank account. Despite this, he misled the court to issue a warrant of attachment and instructed auctioneers to proclaim and attach the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 566 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Peter Kimilu; Claimant: Kennedy Ogendi Onyangore; Respondent: Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 69 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Warrant of Attachment and Stay Execution
- Outcome
- application allowed; execution proceedings set aside
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Judgments, Stay of Execution, Abuse of Court Process, Trade Union Disputes
- 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
Peter Kimilu
Claimant
Kennedy Ogendi Onyangore
Claimant
Kenya Petroleum Oil Workers Union
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Warrant of Attachment and Stay Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent satisfied the decretal sum awarded to the 2nd claimant within the stipulated time.
- 2 Whether the 2nd claimant was entitled to seek execution of the decree after full payment had been made.
- 3 Whether the warrant of attachment and proclamation issued at the instance of the 2nd claimant should be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd claimant, Mr. Kennedy Ogendi Onyangore, had received full payment of the decretal sum awarded to him by the court, and had withdrawn the funds from his bank account. Despite this, he misled the court to issue a warrant of attachment and instructed auctioneers to proclaim and attach the respondent's property for a debt that had already been satisfied. The court held that such conduct amounted to an abuse of the court process, subverted the fair administration of justice, and was contrary to the law. The court emphasized that parties must not go beyond the rights and obligations demarcated by the court and cannot confer upon themselves rights not granted by the...
Court Disposition
application allowed; execution proceedings set aside
Orders
- The respondent's application dated 16th August 2013 is allowed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent trade union.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI
CAUSE NUMBER 69 OF 2012
BETWEEN
1. PETER KIMILU
2. KENNEDY OGENDI ONYANGORE……………………………………………CLAIMANTS
VERSUS
KENYA PETROLEUM OIL WORKERS UNION…….…………………………RESPONDENT
RULING
The Award in this dispute was delivered on 17th May 2013. Paragraph (b) of the executory part reads:-
“The 1st Claimant Peter Kimilu shall be paid 6 months’ gross salary at Kshs.260,400; and the 2nd Claimant Kennedy Ogendi 6 months’ gross salary at Kshs.246,000 in compensation.”
The sum of Kshs.246,000 – less statutory deduction of Kshs.3,120 – total Kshs.242,880, was remitted by the Respondent to the 2nd Claimant’s Equity Bank Limited Account No. [Particulars withheld] on 14th June 2013.
The Respondent therefore discharged its obligation to the 2nd Claimant, and did so in full and within the period of 30 days given in the Award.
The 2nd Claimant went on to withdraw the amount of Kshs.20,000 of the deposit, on 14th June 2013, and kshs.158,000 3 days, later on 17th June 2013.
Intriguingly, Mr. Kennedy Ogendi Onyangore returned to Court and obtained the Decree on 21st June 2013. On 24th July 2013 he applied for and was issued warrant of attachment in execution of decree for money. The warrant was to be executed through Front Bench Auctioneers.
The Auctioneers issued the Respondent a proclamation of Attachable Property. The Movable Property intended to be auctioned to recover the alleged ‘Decretal sum’ and Auctioneers Charges, included an assortment of the Respondent Trade Union’s Office Equipment.
Against this backdrop, the Respondent filed an Application dated 16th August 2013, seeking Stay of Execution and Setting Aside of the Warrant of Attachment and Notice of Proclamation. The 2nd Claimant filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 5th September 2013. The 1st Claimant is deceased, and his Widow informed the Court, his Estate is not seeking any further payment from the Respondent. The Application was heard on 18th March 2014.
The Court Finds and Orders:-
1. The actions of Mr. Ogendi after he was paid the full amount granted by the Court, is very unsettling. He is a Trade Unionist, and has in the past, been appearing before the Industrial Court on behalf of the Respondent. He is a former Officer of the Respondent Trade Union. He merits the tag of an Officer of the Industrial Court.
2. He was paid the full sum of Kshs.242,000. He withdrew the sum from his Bank Account. He then misled the Court to issue a Warrant of Attachment against the Respondent’s property, for a debt that was satisfied within the stipulated time. He instructed Auctioneers to proclaim, attach and sell the Respondent’s Movable Property.
3. The actions taken by Mr. Ogendi are not acceptable. They scintillate utter revulsion. They are in subversion of the fair administration of justice; against good industrial relations; and contrary to the law. What is the role of the Court if Parties go beyond the rights and obligations demarcated by the Court, and confer on themselves rights they feel they ought to have, and go on to execute against their adversaries to enforce illegal decrees? The actions by Mr. Ogendi if allowed to stand, would encourage Parties to resort to self-help, and destabilize constitutional order. Why would an Officer of this Court make a false declaration, and mislead the Court?
4. The Court is satisfied the application by the Respondent dated 16th August 2013 has merit. IT IS ORDERED:-
(a) The Application is allowed.
(b) Costs to the Respondent Trade Union.
(c) The Claimant shall also meet the Auctioneers’ Costs indicated in the Proclamation dated 13th August 2013.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 31st day of March 2014
James Rika
Judge