Teresiah Wanjiru Ndegwa v Barclays Bank Limited [2020] KEELRC 77 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court let a winning party fix a procedural slip rather than lose their judgment, and confirmed interest at 6% applies even when the judgment is silent.
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 decree and warrants of execution issued by the Deputy Registrar are irregular because no draft decree was served on the applicants for approval
- 2.Whether the assessment of costs in the decree is erroneous
- 3.Whether execution on interest can proceed where the judgment was silent on interest
Key legal issues
#Whether execution could proceed without a draft decree being served for approval
The court found that no draft decree was shared with the applicants before execution, an omission that required correction
The applicants asserted no draft decree was served for approval before warrants issued. The court found no indication the respondent shared a draft decree. Rather than setting aside the decree and warrants, the court treated the irregularity as curable, allowing the respondent two weeks to share a draft decree, failing which execution could proceed.
Whether interest on the decretal sum was recoverable where the judgment was silent
Yes; section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act applies, deeming interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree to payment
The court noted that its judgment did not pronounce itself on interest in the decretal sum. It held that in such silence, section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act comes into play, deeming the court to have ordered interest at 6% per annum. The respondent's argument that the applicants could not execute on interest was therefore rejected.
Legal principles established
#- Where a decree is silent on further interest, the court is deemed to have ordered interest at 6% per annum under section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
- Failure to afford a party the opportunity to consider and approve a draft decree breaches the right to fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution
Court orders
#- 1.The respondents are given 2 weeks to correct the omission and share a draft decree for payment/approval
- 2.In default of payment, the respondent may proceed with execution
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court over its own decree and execution; application brought under Certificate of Urgency by Notice of Motion
Relief refused
#Setting aside the decree and warrants of execution outright
The court found the irregularity curable by serving a draft decree rather than setting the process aside
Challenge to execution on interest
The judgment was silent on interest, so section 26(2) of the Civil Procedure Act deems interest at 6% per annum
Costs
No costs order is recorded in the judgment
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.
Given this position, the only recourse to correct this is to allow the respondents correct their mistake and share a draft decree for payment and in default of payment to proceed with execution. Those will be orders of the court in which case I will give the respondents 2 weeks to correct this omission and thereafter proceed to execute if there is no payment.
Indeed the court did not in its Judgment pronounce the issue of interest in the decretal sum. That means that the provision of Section 26 (2) of the CPA come into play
There is no indication that the respondent actually shared any draft decree for approval before execution.
Issues in the judgment
#The case name for BOG Tambach Teachers Training College vs Mary Kipchumba is spelled inconsistently within the judgment ('Tambach' and 'Trainbach'), and the parties' roles are confusingly referred to as both 'respondents' and 'applicants' for the same side
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Teresiah Wanjiru Ndegwa v Barclays Bank Limited [2020] KEELRC 77 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2020/77/eng@2020-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.