[2014] KEELRC 1235 (KLR)
The Court found that the Objector failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to establish legal or beneficial ownership of the goods attached in execution of the decree. The receipts produced were either in the name of the Respondent, a third party, or lacked purchaser details, and the Objector did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEELRC 1235 (KLR)
- Parties
- Claimant: Reuben Mwaboga; Respondent: Bahnhof Bar & Restaurant; Objector: Patricia Mary Hutchison
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 159 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Objection Application / Ruling on Objection to Attachment and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- objection dismissed with costs to the claimant
- Judges
- MSA Makhandia
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Execution of Decree, Objection Proceedings, Ownership of Attached Property
- 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
Reuben Mwaboga
Claimant
Bahnhof Bar & Restaurant
Respondent
Patricia Mary Hutchison
Objector
Procedural Posture
Objection Application / Ruling on Objection to Attachment and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Objector established legal or beneficial ownership of the attached goods to warrant lifting the attachment.
- 2 Whether the objection proceedings should be allowed in the absence of opposition from the other parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the Objector failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to establish legal or beneficial ownership of the goods attached in execution of the decree. The receipts produced were either in the name of the Respondent, a third party, or lacked purchaser details, and the Objector did not adequately explain the relationship between herself, the Respondent, and the individuals named in the receipts. The Court was not satisfied that the Objector had discharged the burden of proof required to succeed in objection proceedings. Consequently, the objection application was dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
Court Disposition
objection dismissed with costs to the claimant
Orders
- The objection proceedings/motion is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
(BIMA TOWERS)
CAUSE NO. 159 OF 2013
REUBEN MWABOGA...............................................................CLAIMANT
v
BAHNHOF BAR & RESTAURANT................................................RESPONDENT
PATRICIA MARY HUTCHISON....................................................OBJECTOR
RULING
On 1 November 2013 the Court awarded the Claimant Kshs 204,398/- after finding and holding that his dismissal was unfair.
The Respondent filed a motion dated 2 April 2014 seeking stay of execution and in a ruling delivered on 23 May 2014 the Court dismissed the application.
On 17 June 2014, a Patricia Mary Hutchinson (Objector) filed an Objection to Attachment and a motion seeking a stay of execution on the ground that her properties her been attached in execution of the decree of the Court.
The Motion was certified urgent and the Court ordered that it be served upon the other parties for inter partes hearing on 26 June 2014.
On 26 June 2014 the Objector informed the Court that though the application had been served, an affidavit of service had not been filed. The Court adjourned the application to 8 July 2014.
On 8 July 2014, the Objector appeared in the absence of the other parties and sought that the objection application be allowed because it was not opposed. The Court directed the Objector to file a further affidavit and postponed the application to 23 July 2014 with an order that a hearing notice be served.
On 23 July 2014, the objection application proceeded in the absence of the Claimant and the Respondent. The Objector informed the Court that she had not filed a further affidavit as directed by the Court and that she would rely on the supporting affidavit filed earlier.
According to the supporting affidavit of the Objector, Sure Auctioneers proclaimed her properties kept at the Respondent’s premises on 31 March 2014. The said properties had been loaned to the Respondent, a Mr. Ian Paul Hutchison trading as the Respondent on a gentleman’s agreement.
The Objector’s supporting affidavit further deposed that the goods had been purchased on her behalf by one Getrude Mwanyota while she was in England.
Evaluation
Most of the goods attached were primarily items used in restaurants and bars and included alcoholic beverages. The Objector exhibited cash purchase receipts for the goods. Most of the receipts were issued in or after December 2013.
Some of the receipts are in the name of the Respondent, Bahnhof Bar & Restaurant. Others are in the name of Getrude Mwanyota and a few in the name of the Objector. Several have no details of the purchasers.
Getrude Mwanyota in whose name some of the receipts were issued was mentioned during the hearing of the main Cause as the Respondent’s Manager. The Objector has not placed sufficient evidence before Court to lay legal ownership of these goods or explained the dual role played by this person.
Again, because several of the receipts did not have the identity of the purchaser the Court is unable to connect the Objector to the legal or beneficial ownership of the goods mentioned in these receipts.
Further, documents on record also suggest that the Respondent was a business carried out by one Hutchison Ian Paul. The name of Hutchinson is common to both the Objector and the Respondent’s proprietor. This fact was not explained or at all whether there is a relationship between the two Hutchisons.
The Court is not satisfied that the Objector has placed sufficient material in Court to connect it either to the beneficial or legal ownership of the goods which were proclaimed and or attached.
Conclusion
The upshot is that the objection proceedings/motion is dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
The Court wishes to express its displeasure at the fact that the Advocates for the Claimant and Respondent though served failed to appear in Court, without any explanation. Once a party has taken a brief, it behoves them to attend to the matter until final determination or withdrawal of instructions. It is their professional obligation to their clients and to the Court.
Delivered, dated and signed in open Court in Mombasa on this 29th day of August 2014.
Radido Stephen
Judge
Appearances
For Claimant No appearance during Motion
For Respondent No appearance during Motion
For Objector Mr. Wafula instructed by Cootow & Associates Advocates