Kiama v Elite Westlands Limited & another (Miscellaneous Application E115 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2968 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court refused to refund overpaid interest, ruling that execution proceedings cannot rewrite an unambiguous arbitral decree.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Judgement Debtors are entitled to the orders sought in their application dated 25th February 2026, namely a refund of Kshs.1,008,446.02 as overpaid interest
Key legal issues
#Whether the 16% interest awarded from 21st June 2022 applies to all heads of the award (a)-(c) or only to the refund of the principal sum
The interest applies uniformly to all heads; the Arbitrator did not distinguish when interest was to be charged on the various heads
The court reproduced the Arbitrator's award and found the Arbitrator was clear on when interest was to be charged. The award did not distinguish between the various heads but awarded interest generally at 16% from 21 June 2022 until payment, plus post-judgment interest. The judgment debtors' contrary reading, applying the general-damages-from-assessment principle, would amount to rewriting the decree emanating from the arbitral award, which execution proceedings cannot do.
Whether the court can order restitution of an alleged overpayment under section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in execution proceedings
No; the application was dismissed because the interpretation sought would vary the decree rather than enforce it
Although section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Act permits restitution where a decree is varied or reversed, the court held that post-judgment applications touching on execution exist only to clarify ambiguity to aid smooth execution, not to overturn or vary the substance of the judgment and resultant decree. Since the decree was unambiguous on the arbitrator's own terms, the restitution claim failed and the motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Execution proceedings are strictly limited to enforcement of a Decree and not variation of the same; post-judgment applications touching on execution may only clarify ambiguity to aid execution, not overturn or vary the substance of the judgment
- Interest on general damages should ordinarily be paid from the date of assessment (the date of judgment), that being the earliest date the defendant's liability arises
- A decree must be executed according to its plain and literal terms; where the decree is express and unambiguous, the court cannot rewrite it in execution
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 25th February 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Civil Procedure Act (execution and restitution provisions, ss. 26(1) and 91(1)); arising from an Arbitral Award dated 19th June 2024
Relief refused
#Refund of Kshs.1,008,446.02 with interest at 16% per annum from 9th February 2026
The Arbitrator awarded interest generally at 16% from 21st June 2022 without distinguishing between heads; the judgment debtors' interpretation would require the court to rewrite the Decree, which execution proceedings cannot do
Alternative order for execution or contempt proceedings against the Decree Holder for refusing to refund the overpaid interest
The application was dismissed in its entirety as unmerited
Costs of the application to the Applicants
Each party ordered to bear their own costs
Costs
Each party to bear their 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.
It is my considered view that the Judgement debtors’ interpretation on calculation of the disputed interest is an invitation to this Court to rewrite the Decree which emanated from an Arbitral Award.
It is trite that execution proceedings as in this instance are strictly limited to enforcement of a Decree and not variation of the same.
the import of any post judgment application touching on execution of a Decree is simply to clarify an ambiguity to aid in smooth execution of the same and not to overturn or vary the substance of the judgment and resultant Decree emanating therefrom.
I will hence decline to vary the Decree herein as regards the calculation of interest.
I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will proceed to dismiss it.
Each party to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the actual parties are not stated in the judgment; the parties appear only as 'Judgement Debtors/Applicants' and 'Decree Holder/Respondent' and the case number is not given
The supporting affidavit is deposed by Edith Muchiri, described as a female Human Resources and Administration Manager, yet the judgment refers to her as 'He', and the award is reproduced with different orderings of the compensatory damages and refund heads between paragraphs 2 and 5
The judgment reproduces the excerpt from the Arbitrator's Award inconsistently with the earlier reproduction of the award: paragraph 2 lists compensatory damages as head (b), while paragraph 25 lists the refund as item 1 and omits any compensatory damages item numbering matching the decree
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiama v Elite Westlands Limited & another (Miscellaneous Application E115 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2968 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2968/eng@2026-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.