Watuku v Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation (Civil Appeal (Application) E206 of 2022) [2026] KECA 108 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal pushed two feuding parties into Registrar-facilitated settlement talks over how a court award and held collateral should be reconciled.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.How the decretal amount arising from the judgment of 9th May 2025 should be computed, given alleged arithmetic mistakes in the respondent's computation
- 2.Whether the respondent's enforcement of the court award while simultaneously holding a collateral securing an outstanding loan of Kshs.924,718.55 would expose the appellant to double jeopardy
Key legal issues
#Settlement of terms of a judgment where parties diverge on computation of the decretal amount and on the interaction between enforcement of the award and a held collateral
The Court did not decide the computation or the collateral question on the merits; it directed a facilitated negotiation before the Registrar, with reference back to the Court only upon deadlock
The judge recorded the appellant's two complaints: arithmetic mistakes in the respondent's figures, and the risk of the appellant both paying the award and losing the collateral for the Kshs.924,718.55 loan. Rather than adjudicating, the judge invoked the Rule 36(2)(d) settlement-of-terms jurisdiction and referred the parties to the Registrar within fourteen days, reserving the matter for further orders in case of deadlock. No final determination was made on the substance.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under Rule 36(2)(d) of the Court of Appeal Rules to settle terms where parties diverge on how a decretal amount is to be worked out
Court orders
#- 1.The parties were beseeched to attempt an amicable agreement as to how to treat the appellant's obligation (if any) vis-à-vis the security held (if any), with the Registrar of the Court facilitating such conversation
- 2.The matter to be mentioned before the Registrar of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the Order
- 3.The matter to be referred back to the Court for further orders in the event of deadlock
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Not stated in the extract provided
- Not stated in the extract provided
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 36(2)(d) of the Court of Appeal Rules (settlement of terms)
Relief refused
#The appellant's request that the Court vary the wording of paragraph 70 of the judgment of 9th May 2025 in light of the collateral/double-jeopardy complaint
The Court did not amend the judgment; instead it directed the parties to seek an amicable agreement facilitated by the Registrar, with reference back to the Court only in the event of deadlock
Costs
No costs order made in this ruling. The underlying judgment of 9th May 2025, as reproduced, ordered: "Each party to bear its own costs."
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This matter shall be mentioned before the Registrar of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Order. It be referred back to this Court for further orders in the event of deadlock.
this matter is brought to me for settlement of terms, a jurisdiction under Rule 36(2)(d) of the Court of Appeal Rules.
In the end, save for the success in the appellant proving that he was entitled to enhanced salary from January 2017 to May 2017, when he had a separation with the Corporation, the appeal has no merit.
The difierence shall attract interest at court rates from the date when the petition was filed until payment in full or on the date it shall be ofiset from any amounts owed to the respondent by the appellant.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment extract reproduces the final order of a judgment of 9th May 2025 with OCR-corrupted words ("difierence", "efiect", "sufier", "resonant"), so verbatim quoting of those passages relies on the corrupted text
The extract does not state the case number, the parties' full names, the court below, or the appeal number, limiting identification of the underlying appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Watuku v Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation (Civil Appeal (Application) E206 of 2022) [2026] KECA 108 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/108/eng@2026-01-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.