[2021] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)

The court found that the objector failed to prove ownership of the proclaimed goods, as documentary evidence showed that the two motor vehicles and other attached items were registered in the name of the judgment debtor, Rural Development Solutions Limited. The court further held that, although the company had been dissolved, property not distributed before dissolution vests in the State under section 905 of the Companies Act, 2015, and execution cannot proceed against a dissolved company. However, since the objector did not establish any legal or equitable interest in the attached property, his application lacked merit. The court dismissed the objection and allowed execution to proceed,...

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Tony Ben Olang Akella; Respondent: Rural Development Solution Limited; Appellant: Svein Rene
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
9 February 2021
Case Number
Cause 544 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Objection Application / Ruling on Objection Proceedings and Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the claimant
Judges
M Mbarũ
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgments, Objection Proceedings, Company Dissolution, Ownership of Attached Property
Source Language
English
Employment and Labour Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Objection Proceedings Company Dissolution Ownership of Attached Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Ben Olang Akella

Applicant

Rural Development Solution Limited

Respondent

Svein Rene

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Objection Application / Ruling on Objection Proceedings and Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant stay of execution of the judgment and consequential orders.
  2. 2 Whether the court should lift the attachment levied on the objector's goods.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the objector failed to prove ownership of the proclaimed goods, as documentary evidence showed that the two motor vehicles and other attached items were registered in the name of the judgment debtor, Rural Development Solutions Limited. The court further held that, although the company had been dissolved, property not distributed before dissolution vests in the State under section 905 of the Companies Act, 2015, and execution cannot proceed against a dissolved company. However, since the objector did not establish any legal or equitable interest in the attached property, his application lacked merit. The court dismissed the objection and allowed execution to proceed,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the claimant

Orders

  • The objector's application dated 17th November 2020 is dismissed with costs to the claimant.