Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case No. 34 of 2018· [2026] KEELC 6097 (KLR)

Rhoda S Kiilu (Suing through her duly appointed Attorneys George Muinde Kiilu and Francis Mutua Kiilu) v Jiangxi Water and Hydropower Construction Kenya Limited

Environment and Land Court at Meru
1 October 2026
OMOguttu Mboya
4,747 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~19 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered Kshs 94.6 million released to a landowner and allowed execution against her former advocate who fraudulently took Kshs 50 million.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Meru (Oguttu Mboya J) determined an unopposed notice of motion dated 23.07.2026 by the plaintiff's attorneys seeking release of security deposited by the defendant/judgment debtor. The underlying decree of 9 March 2022 awarded the plaintiff Kshs. 144,615,000. A stay of execution granted on 13.07.2022 was conditional on deposit of Kshs. 70,000,000 as security, with a further Kshs. 74,615,000 deposited on 23.05.2023. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal on 10 July 2026. The court framed three issues: lapse of the stay, entitlement to release of the security, and appropriate reliefs. It held the stay was conditional on the pending appeal and stood extinguished upon the appeal's dismissal. Of the total Kshs. 144,615,000 deposited, Kshs. 50,000,000 had been fraudulently released to the plaintiff's former advocate, Mr. John Muthomi, pursuant to orders of 12 April 2023; a ruling of 5 February 2026 found the release was procured by deceit, misrepresentation and fraud and ordered restitution within 45 days, which was never complied with. The court ordered release of the remaining Kshs. 94,615,000 to the plaintiff's attorneys, discharged the stay, granted liberty to execute against the judgment debtor for interest and taxed costs, and - notably against a non-party - liberty to execute against Mr. John Muthomi by attachment or warrants of arrest to recover the Kshs. 50,000,000, reasoning he is an officer of the court under Sections 55 and 56 of the Advocates Act and an agent in breach of fiduciary duty. Documentary prayers were refused as unnecessary, and no orders were made on the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the stay of execution pending appeal had lapsed

Holding

The stay was conditional on the pending appeal; the appeal having been dismissed on 10.07.2026, the stay stood extinguished

Reasoning

The stay granted on 13.07.2022 was conditioned on deposit of Kshs. 70,000,000 as security and subsisted only pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 10.07.2026. The event underpinning the stay having occurred, the stay was extinguished and the security's purpose had outlived itself.

p. 10
02

Whether the applicants were entitled to release of the security

Holding

Yes; the balance of Kshs. 94,615,000 remaining in court was releasable to the decree holder's attorneys

Reasoning

Upon determination of the appeal, monies deposited as security become part of the decretal sum payable to the decree holder. Of the total Kshs. 144,615,000 deposited (70,000,000 on 28.07.2022 and 74,615,000 on 23.05.2023), Kshs. 50,000,000 had been fraudulently disbursed to the former advocate, leaving Kshs. 94,615,000 in court for release.

p. 12
03

Recovery of the fraudulently withdrawn Kshs. 50,000,000 from the former advocate

Holding

Mr. John Muthomi, though not a party, is liable to execution as an officer of the court and agent in breach of fiduciary duty

Reasoning

The ruling of 05.02.2026 found the release was procured by deceit, misrepresentation and fraud and ordered restitution within 45 days, which was not complied with. Under Sections 55 and 56 of the Advocates Act the advocate is an officer of the court bound by its orders, and as the plaintiff's agent he breached fiduciary obligations; execution may issue against him.

p. 13
04

Appropriate reliefs on the balance of the decree

Holding

The entire decretal sum having been deposited, only interest and taxed costs remained outstanding; liberty to execute granted accordingly

Reasoning

The record showed the judgment debtor deposited the full Kshs. 144,615,000 decretal sum. What remained outstanding was interest decreed at court rates, reckoned from the date of judgment, and costs yet to be taxed. The applicants were granted liberty to pursue interest as stipulated in the judgment and to tax costs, subject to Order 22 Rule 18.

p. 15

Legal principles established

#
  • A conditional stay of execution pending appeal lapses upon determination of the appeal, and security deposited as a condition of stay becomes available for appropriation towards the decree
  • Court orders must be obeyed; no person, including an advocate, is above the law
  • An advocate who obtains release of court-held funds by fraud and fails to restore them as ordered is liable to execution to recover the monies

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 23.07.2026 allowed on terms
  2. 2.The order of stay of execution granted on 13.07.2022 and modified on 12.04.2023 discharged/varied
  3. 3.The stay of execution declared to have been extinguished
  4. 4.Deputy Registrar ordered to release to the applicants on behalf of the Plaintiff Kshs. 94,615,000 being the balance of the security plus subsequent monies deposited by the defendant
  5. 5.Release to be undertaken without undue delay, subject to established processing and accounting procedures
  6. 6.Applicants at liberty to commence execution proceedings against the judgment debtor to recover computed interest and taxed costs
  7. 7.Applicants at liberty to take out execution proceedings against Mr. John Muthomi, by attachment of his properties or warrants of arrest, to recover the Kshs. 50,000,000 he failed to restitute
  8. 8.Applicants at liberty to file and tax the costs of the suit
  9. 9.No orders as to costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 26, 27, 34, 38, 63(e), 91
  • Environment and Land Court ActSections 13(7), 19
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 22 Rules 1, 2, 18; Order 42 Rules 6, 7; Order 51 Rules 1, 3
  • Advocates ActSections 55, 56
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 48, 50(1), 159(2)(a) and (b)

Cases cited (1)

  • Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2015] KECA 945 (KLR)

    Importance of compliance with court orders; obedience is mandatory, not optional

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A, 26, 27, 34, 38 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 13(7) and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Orders 22, 42 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Articles 48, 50(1), 159(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (25)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rhoda S Kiilu (Suing through her duly appointed Attorneys George Muinde Kiilu and Francis Mutua Kiilu) v Jiangxi Water and Hydropower Construction Kenya Limited", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 34 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6097/eng@2026-10-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.