Muraguri v Magnus Limited; Kinoti (Objector) (Cause 678 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 495 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to undo a costs ruling a company blamed on its lawyer, but removed attached property belonging to a company director personally.
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 Respondent should be granted enlargement of time to lodge a Reference against the Taxing Officer's Ruling of 9 September 2024 and whether the taxation should be set aside
- 2.Whether the proclamation/attachment of 28 October 2024 at the Objector's residence should be set aside where the attached properties did not belong to the judgment debtor
Key legal issues
#Whether a party who claims ignorance of taxation proceedings through the fault of its advocate is entitled to extension of time and setting aside of the taxation
The Summons was dismissed. The record showed the Respondent's advocate was served, attended directions and before the Taxing Officer, and filed submissions; only the failure to update the client was established, which does not justify the relief sought.
The Court traced the record: the Bill of Costs and hearing notice were served and acknowledged on 14 February 2024; the advocate was present on 24 June 2024; and submissions were filed on 18 July 2024. The advocate's professional responsibility was to update the client, and a litigant must follow up its case. The Court held the Respondent has other legal remedies against a defaulting advocate, but extension of time and setting aside taxation are not among them.
Whether execution may proceed against property of a non-party (the Objector, a director of the judgment-debtor company)
The proclamation/warrants of attachment of 28 October 2024 were set aside because the properties proclaimed at the Objector's residence did not belong to the Respondent, the judgment debtor.
The Objector showed a proclaimed vehicle was registered in her name and that she was only a director of the judgment-debtor company, which is a separate legal entity. The Claimant did not rebut that the attachment occurred at the Objector's residence, and there was no indication the Respondent operated from or kept property there. Attachment of non-party property cannot stand.
Legal principles established
#- A party to litigation bears responsibility to show interest in and follow up their case even when represented by counsel, and cannot simply blame advocates for all transgressions in the conduct of litigation
Court orders
#- 1.The Summons dated 30 October 2024 is dismissed with costs
- 2.The Motion dated 30 October 2024 is allowed in terms that the proclamation/warrants of attachment of 28 October 2024 are set aside/vacated
- 3.The Objector is denied costs for failing to file/serve submissions within the agreed timelines
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 the Cause and incidental applications (extension of time to file a Reference against a Taxing Officer's ruling; objection to execution)
Relief refused
#Enlargement of time to lodge a Reference and setting aside of the Taxing Officer's Ruling and Certificate of Taxation
The Respondent's advocate fully participated in the taxation proceedings; the fault lay in the advocate's failure to update the client, which is not a ground for the relief sought
Costs of the Objector's Motion
The Objector failed to file and serve her submissions within the timelines directed by the Court
Costs
The Summons dated 30 October 2024 dismissed with costs to the Claimant; the Objector's Motion allowed but without costs (Objector denied costs for late filing of submissions).
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 not enough for a party in litigation to simply blame the advocates on record for all manner of transgressions in the conduct of the litigation. Courts have always emphasised that parties have a responsibility to show interest in and to follow up their cases even when they are represented by counsel.
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant proclaimed/attached properties which did not belong to the Respondent, and the proclamation/attachment cannot stand.
The Motion dated 30 October 2024 is allowed in terms that the proclamation/warrants of attachment of 28 October 2024 are set aside/vacated.
The Summons dated 30 October 2024 is dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The Objector's Motion is described in one place as dated 31 October 2024 and in the final orders as dated 30 October 2024
The Chamber Summons is dated 30 October 2024 but the paragraph heading introducing the Objector's application reads 'Motion for Stay of Execution' after the Summons analysis; the two applications' dates overlap in the record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Muraguri v Magnus Limited; Kinoti (Objector) (Cause 678 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 495 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Employment Cause, with Chamber Summons dated 30 October 2024 and Motion dated 30/31 October 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/495/eng@2025-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.