[2025] KEELRC 1581 (KLR)
The court held that it is not prudent or just for the university and its employees to seek attachment of the claimant's salary for recovery of costs when the university has not satisfied the decree in favour of the claimant for reinstatement and benefits. The court found that the parties are the same in both causes...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELRC 1581 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kiama Wangai; Respondent: Pamela Tsimbiri; Respondent: Titus Nganda; Respondent: Elizabeth K. Mbuthia; Respondent: Kenneth Mbaati; Respondent: V.M. Kiprono; Respondent: Ceaser Mungatana; Respondent: Kennedy Gogo; Respondent: S.O. Obure; Respondent: T.K. Serem; Respondent: Janet C. Bii; Respondent: Egerton University
- Court
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Court Station
- Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 11 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Consolidated Cause / Ruling on Post Judgment Applications and Costs
- Outcome
- Costs to be set off against decretal sum; claimant may execute for balance; files deconsolidated.
- Judges
- J Rika
- Legal Topics
- Reinstatement of Employment, Salary Arrears, Costs Recovery, Set Off of Judgments
- 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
Kiama Wangai
Applicant
Pamela Tsimbiri
Respondent
Titus Nganda
Respondent
Elizabeth K. Mbuthia
Respondent
Kenneth Mbaati
Respondent
V.M. Kiprono
Respondent
Ceaser Mungatana
Respondent
Kennedy Gogo
Respondent
S.O. Obure
Respondent
T.K. Serem
Respondent
Janet C. Bii
Respondent
Egerton University
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Cause / Ruling on Post Judgment Applications and Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to attach the claimant's salary for recovery of costs while the university owes the claimant a decretal sum.
- 2 Whether costs awarded to the respondents should be set off against the decretal sum owed to the claimant by the university.
- 3 Whether the parties have complied with the consent on payment of benefits and the court's previous orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it is not prudent or just for the university and its employees to seek attachment of the claimant's salary for recovery of costs when the university has not satisfied the decree in favour of the claimant for reinstatement and benefits. The court found that the parties are the same in both causes and that the costs awarded to the respondents should be recovered from the decretal sum owed by the university to the claimant. The court emphasized that set-off is the appropriate mechanism in these circumstances, and that the parties should have resolved the matter without further litigation. The court ordered that the respondents recover their costs from the decretal sum and...
Court Disposition
Costs to be set off against decretal sum; claimant may execute for balance; files deconsolidated.
Orders
- The university and its co-respondents shall recover their costs in Cause No. 11 of 2020 from the decretal sum held in favour of the claimant by the university in Cause No. 224 of 2017.
- The claimant may proceed to execute on his balance if the university fails to honour the terms of the consent dated 14th September 2021.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
53 paragraphs
Wangai v Tsimbiri & 10 others (Cause 11 of 2020 & 224 of 2017 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 1581 (KLR) (30 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELRC 1581 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru
Cause 11 of 2020 & 224 of 2017 (Consolidated)
J Rika, J
May 30, 2025
Between
Kiama Wangai
Claimant
and
Pamela Tsimbiri
1st Respondent
Titus Nganda
2nd Respondent
Elizabeth K. Mbuthia
3rd Respondent
Kenneth Mbaati
4th Respondent
V .M .Kiprono
5th Respondent
Ceaser Mungatana
6th Respondent
Kennedy Gogo
7th Respondent
S.O. Obure
8th Respondent
T.K. Serem
9th Respondent
Janet C. Bii
10th Respondent
Egerton University
11th Respondent
Ruling
Cause No. 224 of 2017 1. The Claimant obtained Judgment against the 11th Respondent in E&LRC Cause No. 224 of 2017, on 24th January 2019.
2. The University was ordered to reinstate the Claimant to his position as a Senior Lecturer, without loss of benefits.
3. The University reinstated the Claimant, but appears not to have done so, without loss of benefits.
4. On 14th September 2021, the parties computed these benefits at Kshs. 16,772,916, which was to be paid at Kshs. 500,000 monthly.
5. The Claimant’s position is that the University owes him Kshs. 13,163,512, which continues to attract interest at the rate of 14% per annum.
Cause No. 11 of 2020. 6. This Cause was initiated by the Claimant against the University and its Staff. The Claimant pursued general damages for defamation, alleging that leading up to termination of his employment [subject matter of reinstatement in Cause No. 224 of 2017], the University and its Staff, defamed him, by alleging that the Claimant was engaged in insubordination, sexual impropriety and academic intimidation of students.
7. The Claim was dismissed with costs to the Respondents, in a Judgment delivered on 12th April 2023.
8. These costs were assessed at Kshs. 661,881.
9. The Respondents have applied for attachment of the Claimant’s salary, in recovery of their costs.
10. The Claimant submits that the costs awarded to the Respondents, should be recovered from the sum of Kshs. 13,183,512 owed by the University to him.
11. The Court directed on 24th April 2025 that the files are placed together, to enable the Court make this consolidated ruling.
12. Parties were directed to file and exchange written submissions.
The Court Finds: - 13. The Claimant and the University are parties to both Claims.
14. The persons named as Co-Respondents in Cause No. 11 of 2020, are Employees of the University.
15. It is not prudent for the University and its Employees to seek to attach the Claimant’s salary for recovery of costs, while the University has not satisfied decree in Cause No. 224 of 2017, made in favour of the Claimant.
16. The University does not dispute that the it agreed with the Claimant, that it owed him Kshs. 16,772,916, which was to be liquidated in monthly instalments of Kshs. 500,000. It is not disputed that the decree has not been satisfied in full.
17. Parties indeed, ought to have risen above their egos, and settled this simple arithmetic dispute at their own level, instead of coming back to Court incessantly, and taxing judicial economy. The Court has dealt with the substantive and secondary disputes between the Parties, and the Deputy Registrar should flag these 2 files for closure, as soon as practicable.
It is Ordered: -a.The University and its Co-Respondents shall recover their costs in Cause No. 11 of 2020, from the decretal sum held in favour of the Claimant by the University, in Cause No. 224 of 2017. b.The Claimant may proceed to execute on his balance, if the University fails to honour the terms of the consent dated 14th September 2021. c.The files are deconsolidated.d.A copy of the ruling be placed on both files.
DATED, SIGNED AND RELEASED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY AT NAKURU THIS 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025. JAMES RIKAJUDGE