Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedELRC No. 2181 of 2014 (application dated 25.07.2024)

Trailink Group Limited v Muchendu t/a Icon Auctioneers & another (Cause 2181 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 586 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
27 February 2025
BOByram Ongaya
1,166 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An auctioneer lost his bid to reverse orders nullifying his Kshs. 640,791 costs because an appeal judgment had already swept away everything he relied on.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The auctioneer (Jeremiah Kiarie Muchendu) filed a notice of motion dated 25.07.2024 seeking to set aside orders of 24.07.2024 by which the Court, unopposed, allowed the claimant's application dated 19.06.2024. That application had sought a declaration that the auctioneer's costs of Kshs. 640,791.00 assessed by Hon. Aziza Ajwang on 02.05.2024 in Miscellaneous E194 of 2023 were null and void, contending that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2018 (consolidated with Civil Appeals Nos. 589 of 2019 and 780 of 2021) had, on 07.06.2024, overturned the judgment of this Court and set aside all consequential processes including the execution proceedings. The auctioneer alleged improper service, network problems preventing his advocate from attending, and prejudice. The claimant (Peter Njenga, HR Services Manager, replying affidavit sworn 07.11.2024) opposed, arguing the applicant knew of the hearing for six days, the advocate's network claim was unverified, and that no suit had been dismissed on 24.07.2024. The Court held that service had been duly effected and unchallenged, that the alleged network failure was unverified by affidavit, and that the Court of Appeal's binding judgment had set aside all consequential orders including the assessed auctioneer's costs, leaving the auctioneer with no triable issue. It also found the prayer defective since no suit was dismissed on 24.07.2024. The application dated 25.07.2024 was dismissed with no orders on costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the orders of 24.07.2024 allowing the claimant's application dated 19.06.2024 should be set aside
  2. 2.Whether the auctioneer's replying affidavit raised triable issues to warrant reinstatement/hearing of the application dated 19.06.2024
  3. 3.Whether the application was duly served and the auctioneer's non-attendance excused

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether set-aside orders of 24.07.2024 were warranted

Holding

Dismissed - service was proper, no verified excuse for non-attendance, and no triable issues existed

Reasoning

The affidavit of service showed due service that was never challenged. The auctioneer admitted knowledge of the application since 18.07.2024. His advocate did not swear an affidavit verifying the alleged network failure. Further, the Court of Appeal judgment of 07.06.2024 set aside the trial judgment and all consequential orders, including the assessed auctioneer's costs, so the auctioneer had no triable issue.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A Court of Appeal judgment setting aside a trial court judgment and all consequential orders extinguishes downstream processes including assessed auctioneer's costs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 25.07.2024 filed for the auctioneer is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders on costs (no costs will issue)

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

BO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(1)(d) and Article 50 of the Constitution; section 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 12 Rule 7, Order 17 rule 1(1 and 2), rule 2(6) and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relief refused

#

Setting aside the orders of 24.07.2024 allowing the application dated 19.06.2024

The auctioneer was duly served, his advocate did not verify the alleged network failure, and no triable issues were raised

p. 3

Reinstatement/dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution

No suit was dismissed on 24.07.2024; the prayer was fatally defective

p. 3

Costs

No costs - the application dated 25.07.2024 was dismissed with no orders as to 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.

In conclusion the application dated 25.07.2024 filed for the auctioneer is hereby dismissed with no orders on costs.
p. 3Final orders - dismissal
it appears to the Court that the binding and finality efiect of the Judgment by the Court of Appeal was that all consequential processes
p. 3Effect of Court of Appeal judgment on consequential processes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Trailink Group Limited v Muchendu t/a Icon Auctioneers & another (Cause 2181 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 586 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELRC No. 2181 of 2014 (application dated 25.07.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/586/eng@2025-02-27

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