Uwanamo v Maxiguard Equities Limited & another (Cause 303 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 602 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court threw out an employer's repeat attempt to delay paying a judgment, ruling the same requests had already been decided.
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 1st Respondent's applications dated 1st August 2024 and 3rd September 2024 seeking stay of execution and payment of the decretal sum in instalments are res judicata and an abuse of the process of the Court
- 2.What role, if any, the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru plays as a 2nd Respondent in the applications
Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent's applications for stay of execution and payment in instalments were barred by res judicata
The applications were res judicata, as the Court had already determined the same prayers in its Ruling on the application dated 19th June 2023, and were a gross abuse of the process of the Court intended to delay the Claimant from realizing the fruits of his judgment.
The Court observed that the mode of payment and stay of execution were already adjudicated in the Ruling of 19th June 2023, in which the 1st Respondent was directed to pay half the decretal sum within 30 days and the balance within a further 30 days. The 1st Respondent did not comply but instead filed repeated, wasteful applications. The Claim was filed 11 years prior, judgment was delivered in 2022, and had the 1st Respondent paid instalments as desired since then, nothing would remain outstanding. The applications were therefore intended only to delay satisfaction of the judgment.
The joinder and role of the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru as 2nd Respondent
The joinder of the Diocese was unexplained; there was no application or order introducing it as a Co-Respondent, and the 1st Respondent's own submissions did not name it as such.
The Court noted that the Diocese was named as 2nd Respondent in both the applications dated 1st August 2024 and 3rd September 2024 without any explanation of the context. It was not a Respondent from the beginning of the case, and no application or order was seen introducing it as a Co-Respondent. The 1st Respondent's submissions dated 4th November 2024 also failed to name the Diocese as a Co-Respondent, leaving its role entirely unclear.
Legal principles established
#- An application seeking orders already adjudicated by the Court is res judicata and constitutes a gross abuse of the process of the Court.
- A party cannot introduce a new respondent into proceedings without an application and orders joining that party.
Court orders
#- 1.The applications dated 1st August 2024 and 3rd September 2024 are declined
- 2.Costs on both applications to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the judgment; the matter was determined by the Employment and Labour Relations Court, Nakuru
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the judgment of 6th December 2022
The Court had already adjudicated the prayer on stay of execution and mode of payment in its Ruling on the application dated 19th June 2023; the fresh applications were res judicata and an abuse of process.
Payment of the decretal sum in monthly instalments
The mode of payment had already been determined by the Court, and the 1st Respondent had not complied with the earlier direction to pay half the decretal sum within 30 days and the balance within a further 30 days.
Costs
Costs on both applications 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 applications filed by the 1st Respondent subsequently are in gross abuse of the process of the Court, and are res judicata.
The 2 applications are in gross abuse of the process of the Court, and intended to delay the Claimant, in actualizing the fruits of his Judgment, delivered 3 years ago, in 2022.
a. The applications dated 1st August 2024 and 3rd September 2024, are declined. b. Costs on both applications to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the Claimant and 1st Respondent, the case number and the neutral citation are not stated in the judgment text provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Uwanamo v Maxiguard Equities Limited & another (Cause 303 of 2014) [2025] KEELRC 602 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/602/eng@2025-02-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.