https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1861

V.Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E236 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1861 (KLR) (26 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1861 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous E236 of 2024 HS Wasilwa, J June 26, 2026 Between V.Chokaa & Co. Advocates Applicant and Roy Hauliers Respondent Ruling 1.The Respondent filed a Notice of Motion application dated 12th March 2026 seeking orders:1.That pending the hearing and determination of this application inter-partes, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a temporary stay of execution of the Garnishee Order Absolute issued on 12th March 2026, restraining the Garnishee, Prime Bank Limited, from releasing or disbursing any funds from the Respondent/Judgment Debtor's account No. 300xxxxxxx to the Applicant/Decree Holder.2.That pending the hearing and determination of this application, this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a temporary stay of execution of the Garnishee Order Absolute issued on 12th March 2026, restraining the Garnishee, Prime Bank Limited, from releasing or disbursing any funds from the Respondent/Judgment Debtor's account No. 300xxxxxxx to the Applicant/Decree Holder.3.That the Applicant/Decree Holder be compelled to furnish, within 14 days or such other period as the Court may direct, detailed valuation reports prepared by a licensed valuer for all motor vehicles attached and sold, including but not limited to Registration Nos. KCK 964B (Nissan Caravan, 2008), KBN 339F (Tata Van/Pickup, 2010), KBS 853V (MAN Prime Mover), ZC 8079 (Fruehauf Trailer),4.That the Applicant/Decree Holder and/or Taifa Auctioneers be directed to provide afull and transparent accounting of all proceeds realized from the sales of the aforementioned motor vehicles, including deductions for auctioneers' fees, storage charges, and any other costs, to enable the Court to determine if the decretal sums across this cause and related Miscellaneous Applications have been satisfied.5.That upon provision of the valuation reports and accounting, this Honourable Court be pleased to review and/or set aside the Garnishee Order Absolute if it is established that the decretal amount has been fully or substantially satisfied by the vehicle sales, to prevent unjust enrichment to the Applicant/Decree Holder.6.That the costs of this application be provided for and borne by the Applicant/Decree Holder. Respondent’s Case 2.The Respondent avers that execution proceedings conducted against it have been marred by illegalities and procedural impropriety that collectively warrant the stay of the Garnishee Order Absolute and a full accounting of proceeds realized from the sale of its motor vehicles. 3.The Respondent avers that judgments were entered against it on 20th and 27th February 2025 in Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous Applications Nos. E227/2024, E230/2024, E237/2024, E238/2024, E239/2024, E240/2024, E224/2024, E231/2024, E232/2024, E234/2024, E235/2024, E236/2024 and E241/2024, with the decretal sum in this specific cause standing at Kshs. 2,287,511.05 inclusive of interest and costs. 4.The Respondent contends that pursuant to those judgments, Warrants of Attachment dated 24th July 2025 were issued to Taifa Auctioneers, who proceeded to attach and sell several of its motor vehicles, including KCK 964B (Nissan Caravan, 2008) and KBN 339F (Tata Van/Pickup, 2010), notwithstanding prior objections raised in applications dated 4th August 2025 and others, which highlighted that the attachments were in violation of Rule 12 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997. 5.It further avers that earlier warrants had been issued to Mbeki Auctioneers over additional vehicles registered as MU Reg Nos. 2544 UBS, VCU 2025, MCC 62970, RB5 6915 and HAX 1910, which were subsequently and irregularly transferred to Taifa Auctioneers in breach of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997, leading to further attachments and sales without proper procedural compliance. 6.The Respondent asserts that in Ruling No. 6 delivered on 17th June 2025, this Court ordered the immediate unconditional return of motor vehicle KCK 964B on grounds of illegal attachment, yet the vehicle was nonetheless sold at undervalue in defiance of that order and contrary to Rule 15 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997, which mandates fair market valuation prior to sale. 7.It further avers that in Ruling No. 5 delivered on 17th November 2025, this Court declared the seizure of KBS 853V (MAN Prime Mover) and ZC 8079 (Fruehauf Trailer) illegal and void ab initio and granted a mandatory injunction for their release, yet the Applicant and Taifa Auctioneers have failed to fully comply and no accounting of any proceeds, if sales occurred, has been rendered to date. 8.The Respondent contends that no independent valuation reports have been tendered for any of the sold vehicles, depriving it of the opportunity to verify whether the sale proceeds suffice to offset the decretal amounts in line with Section 20 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. 9.It avers that based on market values, the combined worth of the attached and sold vehicles exceeds Kshs. 5,000,000, which is more than sufficient to satisfy the aggregate decretal sums across all related causes. In support thereof, it has annexed valuation and purchase documents reflecting ZC 8079 at KShs. 6,130,000 per a 2013 Valuation Report, KBN 339F at KShs. 1,235,000 per 2010 Purchase Documents, and KCK 964B at KShs. 1,300,101.20 per 2016 Purchase Documents. 10.The Respondent avers that Prime Bank Limited, the Garnishee, in its Replying Affidavit dated 17th June 2025, confirmed that account No. 300xxxxxxx holds insufficient funds to fully satisfy the decree, yet the Garnishee Order Nisi was made absolute without first ascertaining through valuation and accounting whether the vehicle sales had already extinguished the debt. 11.The Respondent states that the garnishee amount of Kshs. 897,994.80 as confirmed by the bank statement, together with the vehicle valuations, collectively exceed the decretal sum by a significant margin, risking double recovery in violation of Order 22 Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 12.It is the Respondent's case that the failure to produce valuation reports constitutes material non-disclosure undermining the principles of transparency and accountability under Article 159(2)(a) of the Constitution, and Section 3 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act. 13.It asserts that allowing the release of garnished funds without first tethering valuations would amount to unjust enrichment contrary to established common law principles and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21. 14.The Respondent further contends that it has diligently pursued remedies through prior applications dated 17th June 2025, 4th August 2025, 29th August 2025, 4th September 2025 and 17th November 2025, all of which highlighted the need for proper accounting, yet these issues remain unresolved. 15.It was stated that under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, it has demonstrated substantial loss if the stay is not granted, as depletion of the garnished bank funds would cripple its operations, while the Applicant faces no prejudice given the prior vehicle sales. 16.It additionally asserts that Taifa Auctioneers has failed to maintain and produce accurate records of sales and valuations as required under the Auctioneers Act, No. 5 of 1996 and Rule 17 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997, necessitating Court intervention to compel disclosure. 17.The Respondent urges this Court to exercise its discretion under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, stay execution, compel Taifa Auctioneers to furnish valuation reports and a full accounting of all sale proceeds, and determine whether the decree stands satisfied before the garnished funds are released, so as to uphold its rights under Articles 40 and 48 of the Constitution and to prevent irreparable harm and abuse of the execution process. Applicant’s Case 18.It is the Applicant’s case that the Respondent's application is an unmeritorious attempt to avoid paying a lawfully obtained decree and that a balance remains outstanding which the Applicant is entitled to recover. 19.The Applicant avers that on 27th February 2025, judgment was entered in its favour in this matter, consolidated with Misc. Applications Nos. E227, E228, E229, E230, E231, E232, E233, E235, E237, E238, E239, E240 and E241 of 2024, for Kshs. 2,287,511.05, being its firm's fees for work undertaken for the Respondent in various matters. 20.It is the Applicant's case that between February 2025 and the date of this application, the Respondent has filed five (5) applications designed to obtain orders not to pay the decretal sum. In that regard, the Applicant draws the Court's attention to a ruling delivered on 27th January 2026 by Justice Radido, in which the learned Judge observed as follows in one of those applications: “On the admission by the Advocate that motor vehicle KCK 964B was sold and by dint of Section 25(1) of the Auctioneers Act, it is clear that the orders sought by the Respondent have been overtaken by events." 21.The Applicant avers that warrants of attachment and sale were issued by this Court to Taifa Auctioneers and not to its firm, and that the vehicles complained of by the Respondent were attached and sold by the said Auctioneers and not by the Applicant. Therefore, only the Auctioneers who can render an account of the attachment, sale and values assigned to those vehicles prior to sale, and not the Applicant's firm. 22.It further draws the Court's attention to Section 26(1) of the Auctioneers Act, which provides that any person who suffers special or general damages by the unlawful or improper exercise of any power by a licensed Auctioneer is entitled to recover such damages directly from the Auctioneer by action, and not from the Decree Holder. 23.The Applicant contends that the values being assigned by the Respondent to the attached vehicles cannot be correct, as the documents annexed reflect purchase prices of used second-hand vehicles bought in the years 2010, 2013 and 2016 respectively, and not their values as at 2025. 24.As regards recovery under the decree, the Applicant states that out of the decretal sum of Kshs. 2,287,511.05, its firm has to date received a total of Kshs. 1,118,471.80 made up as follows: proceeds from the sale of vehicle KCK 964B - Kshs. 849,454.80; proceeds from the sale of vehicle KBN 339F - Kshs. 228,837; and proceeds from garnishee of Account No. 300xxxxxxx with Prime Bank - Kshs. 40,180. Therefore, there remains an outstanding balance of Kshs. 1,169,039.25 due and owing under the decree. 25.The Applicant additionally avers that it is aware that on 20th November 2025, this Court made an order that Prime Mover No. KBS 853V and Trailer No. ZC 8079 attached by the Auctioneers be returned and restored, and the Auctioneers were informed to comply immediately. 26.The Applicant urges this Court to dismiss the Respondent's application and permit continued execution until the outstanding balance of KShs. 1,169,039.25 is fully recovered. Respondent’s Submissions 27.The Respondent submitted on two issues: whether this Honourable Court should compel the Applicant/Decree Holder and/or Taifa Auctioneers to furnish detailed valuation reports prepared by licensed valuers for all motor vehicles attached and sold; whether a full and accurate itemized accounting of all proceeds of sale, deductions, commissions and net credits should be ordered to enable proper set-off and prevent unjust enrichment. 28.On the first issue, the Respondent submitted that the auctioneer's dual role as an officer of the Court and agent of the Decree Holder, coupled with the mandatory inventory obligation under Rule 6 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997, mandates the production of valuation reports for all attached and sold vehicles. 29.It submitted that the vehicles in question were essential business assets whose documented historical and market values far exceed the decretal sums across the related files. In that regard, the Respondent pointed to its own purchase documents and valuation reports placed before the Court, including ZC 8079 (Fruehauf Trailer) valued at Kshs. 6,130,000 per a 2013 Valuation Report, and submitted that the complete absence of licensed valuer reports in respect of vehicles sold in 2025 raises serious questions about the propriety of the sales and the net credits applied against the decree. 30.The Respondent further submitted that this Court's supervisory jurisdiction over execution proceedings empowers it to direct production of valuation reports even post-sale where fairness and prevention of over-recovery so demand, relying on Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited v Orata International Limited & 2 others [2025] KEHC 16211 (KLR). It argued that granting this order would enable the Court to verify whether the sales reflected fair market value and whether proper credits have been applied across the related causes. 31.On the second issue, the Respondent submitted that the partial net figures disclosed in the Applicant's Replying Affidavit falls short of the full itemised account required under Rule 18(4) of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997. It argued that without gross sale prices, deductions and commissions, it is impossible to determine whether over-recovery has occurred. 32.It was further submitted that the combined realization of proceeds from the sale of the Respondent's motor vehicles, in the absence of any transparent valuation or full accounting, together with the substantial funds already released pursuant to the Garnishee Order Absolute against Account No. 300xxxxxxx at Prime Bank Limited amounting to approximately KShs. 849,454.80, creates a clear and present risk of unjust enrichment to the Applicant/Decree Holder. 33.The Respondent argued that when the net sums already received from the vehicle sales are added to the garnisheed amount, the total recovery exceeds the decretal sum, yet without verified valuations of vehicles whose market values far exceed that sum, any further or unadjusted recovery would result in the unjust enrichment of the Applicant, occasioning grave injustice to the Respondent. 34.It is the Respondent’s submission that the Decree Holder, having directly benefited from the sales through its agent Taifa Auctioneers, must facilitate complete disclosure to allow proper set-off against the decretal amount. 35.The Respondent further submitted that without the orders sought, it will suffer irreparable prejudice in violation of its constitutional right to protection of property under Article 40 of the Constitution. It argued that the execution process has already been marred by parallel proceedings and unresolved accounting disputes as acknowledged by this Court in Ruling No. 5 of 17th November 2025 and Ruling No. 6 of 27th January 2026. 36.It was submitted that the orders sought are necessary, proportionate and in the interests of justice, and that granting them would uphold the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act of ensuring just, expeditious and proportionate resolution of disputes, while preserving the integrity of Court-supervised execution proceedings. Applicant’s Submissions 37.By way of preliminary observation, the Applicant noted that as at the time of filing its submissions on 28th April 2026, the Respondent had neither filed nor served its own submissions, notwithstanding the order of 24th March 2026 requiring it to do so within 14 days. Additionally, on 24th March 2026, the Respondent had conceded that prayer 1 in the application had been overtaken by events and would not be pursued. 38.The Applicant further submitted that prayer 2, which sought a stay of the Garnishee Order made absolute on 12th March 2026 and restraint of Prime Bank Ltd from releasing funds in Account No. 300xxxxxxx, had equally been overtaken by events, as the garnisheed funds of Kshs. 849,454.80 were released to the Applicant's firm on 13th March 2026, as confirmed in its Replying Affidavit. 39.On furnishing of valuation reports, the Applicant submitted that the prayer seeking valuation reports from the Advocates/Decree Holders is misguided and cannot issue. It submitted that the warrants of attachment and sale were issued by this Court to M/s Taifa Auctioneers and not to the Advocates, and they were not involved in the attachment and never attached any assets belonging to the Respondent. Therefore, it is the Auctioneers who can furnish valuation reports in respect of the attached vehicles. 40.The Applicant further submitted that in any event, if the Respondent desired an independent valuation of the vehicles, that demand ought to have been made before sale and not after. It argued that valuations were placed on the vehicles by the Auctioneers and the Respondent had the opportunity to challenge those valuations but failed to do so. In support, the Applicant relied on Rule 10 of the Auctioneers Rules, 1997, which expressly provides that: "A debtor may at any time before the property seized or repossessed or sold, apply to a Court for an order that the property be valued by an independent 'valuer'." 41.On accounts of proceeds of sale, the Applicant submitted that the prayer seeking an account of proceeds of sale from the Advocates is equally misplaced, as it is the Auctioneers who seized and sold the Respondent's property and not them. It argued that the Advocates cannot, in such circumstances, be required to account for the proceeds of sale. The Applicant further submitted that in any event, the Replying Affidavit of Dr. Vincent Chokaa provided an account of what the firm received from the Auctioneers together with supporting documents and the outstanding balance of the decretal amount. 42.The Applicant drew the Court's attention to the ruling of Justice S. Radido delivered on 27th January 2026, in which the learned Judge directed the Respondent to Section 26(1) of the Auctioneers Act for remedy in respect of its complaint of wrongful sale or sale at an undervalue. The Applicant quoted the said provision as follows:“26.Right to recover damages from auctioneer(i)Subject to the provisions of any other written law, a person who suffers any special or general damages by the unlawful or improper exercise of any power by a licenced Auctioneer shall be entitled to recover any damages directly suffered by him from the Auctioneers by action." 43.On review/setting aside of garnishee order absolute, the Applicant submitted that since the Garnishee Order was made absolute with the consent of the Respondent and the moneys paid out thereunder, that order cannot be set aside or reviewed. 44.On the question of agency, the Applicant took issue with the Respondent's reliance on the case of Muller & another v Lochab Transport Limited; Daily Trucks Limited & 2 others (Objector) [2024] KEHC 13995 (KLR), arguing that the facts of that case are quite different from those of the present matter. Justice F. Mugambi, stated in the case at paragraph 15: "the law is clear that an Auctioneer acts as an agent of the decree holders engaged at their instance and under their authority to execute Warrants of Attachment and Sale" She neither cited any authority for that proposition nor did she distinguish between the role of Auctioneers executing Court-issued warrants and Auctioneers executing instructions outside the Court process, such as distraining for rent, selling charged property or repossessing under Chattels Mortgages. 45.The Applicant submitted that the correct legal position is that Auctioneers executing warrants issued to them by a Court are officers of the Court and accountable to the Court and not to the Decree Holder, as provided under Section 23(a) of the Auctioneers Act and cited Civicon Limited v Mulji Devraj & 2 others [2021] eKLR. 46.The Applicant submitted that any demand for valuation reports or an account of proceeds of sale should be directed at Taifa Auctioneers and not at the Advocates, and urged this Court to dismiss the application with costs. 47.I have examined all the averments and submissions of the parties herein. The applicant seeks orders of this court to specifically have the applicant/DH to furnish before court detailed valuation reports by a licenced valuer for the sold motor vehicles KCK 964B, KBN 339F, KBDS 853V and ZC 8079. The applicants seeks further a full account of all these sales plus auctioneers charges, storage fees and any other costs incurred towards the execution already done. They further seek a review of the order garnishee absolute if it is established that the decretal amount has been fully and substantially satisfied. 48.These orders are sought as submitted herein that failure to produce valuation reports constitute material non disclosure. The gist of the application is basically the need for accounting of what was sold backed up by valuation reports in order to ensure transparency of the process. 49.The application in this court’s view would aid the court in making a proper determination of the issue before it in order to meet the ends of justice. I find the application necessary in the interest of justice to ensure that expeditious and proportionate resolution of this dispute while preserving the integrity of a court suspended execution process. 50.I therefore allow the application in terms of prayer 3 and 4 . Prayer 1 and 2 having been overtaken by events, prayer 5 will ensue upon satisfaction of prayer 3 and 4. Costs in the cause. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HELLEN WASILWAJUDGE