Tony Ben Olang Akella v Rural Development Solution Limited; Svein Rene (Objector/Applicant) [2021] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment Court dismissed a man's bid to stop sale of attached vehicles and goods because he couldn't prove they were his, not the company's.
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 court should grant stay of execution herein
- 2.Whether the court should lift the attachment levied on the objector's goods
- 3.Who should pay costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the objector proved a legal or equitable interest in the attached property
The objection failed; the vehicles were registered in the name of the Judgment Debtor and no evidence (e.g. receipts) proved the objector's ownership of the other goods
Objection proceedings require the objector to show that at the date of attachment he held a legal or beneficial interest in the attached property. The NTSA searches and the log book produced by the claimant showed the two vehicles were registered to Rural Development Solutions, the Judgment Debtor. The objector's own search confirmed this. For the remaining goods, the objector offered no receipts or documents. His assertion of ownership was therefore unsupported.
Effect of the dissolution of the Judgment Debtor on execution
Dissolution was proved prima facie by gazette notice, and property of a dissolved company vests in the State under section 905 of the Companies Act, 2015; but the court declined to give further directions without information on any section 905(4) application or restoration application
The certificate of incorporation, certificate of change of name and Gazette Notice No. 6414 were not disputed, establishing that the company changed its name to Rudeso Holding Limited and was dissolved. Under section 905 of the Companies Act, 2015 undistributed property vests in the State upon dissolution. However, the court lacked information on whether any application under section 905(4) or for restoration had been made, so it made no further directions on execution.
Whether stay of execution should be granted
Stay was refused as the objector demonstrated no interest in the attached property
The objector's principal basis for stay was his claim of ownership of the proclaimed goods. Having failed to prove any legal or equitable interest, the foundation for the stay application collapsed. The claimant held a valid judgment and the proclaimed goods belonged to the Judgment Debtor, so execution could proceed, subject only to the complication created by the dissolution.
Legal principles established
#- The burden lies on the objector to prove his right to have attached property released from attachment, by showing the property was not held by the judgment-debtor or that the objector holds it on his own account
- A dissolved company cannot hold or possess property, and property of a dissolved company vests in the State under section 905 of the Companies Act, 2015
Court orders
#- 1.The Objector's application dated 17th November 2020 was found without merit and dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 22 Rules 51, 52, 53 and Order 51 Rule 1 & 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment and consequential orders pending hearing and determination of the application
The registered owner of the proclaimed vehicles was the Judgment Debtor; the objector failed to prove any legal or equitable interest
Lifting of the proclamation and attachment levied by Moran Auctioneers
No proof supported the objector's assertion of title; the goods are registered under the Judgment Debtor
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Claimant.
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.
The burden is on the objector to prove and establish his right to have the attached property released from the attachment.
It is trite law that a dissolved company cannot hold or possess property.
Accordingly, the Objector application dated 17th November 2020 is found without merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The claimant/decree holder is never named in the judgment; parties are referred to only by role, and the roles of the named respondent are inconsistent (referred to as both Judgment Debtor and respondent).
The auctioneer's name is inconsistently spelt ('Moran Auctioneers' and 'Morn Auctioneers').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tony Ben Olang Akella v Rural Development Solution Limited; Svein Rene (Objector/Applicant) [2021] KEELRC 1455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the excerpt. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2021/1455/eng@2021-02-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.