Transport Workers Union [K] v Lochab Brothers Limited (Cause 414 of 2013) [2025] KEELRC 710 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that money paid under a judgment later overturned on appeal must be refunded in full, even if already spent.
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 is entitled to restitution of the decretal sum and taxed costs paid to the Claimant after the Court of Appeal set aside the trial judgment in its entirety
- 2.Whether the Claimant's objections (late notice of appeal, delay in filing the appeal, multiple review and stay applications, expenditure of the decretal sum on union activities, and an intended application for review of the Court of Appeal judgment) justify non-restitution
Key legal issues
#Whether restitution lies where the judgment under which money was received has been overturned on appeal
Restitution was granted; the Claimant has no legal basis to retain money paid under a judgment reversed in its entirety
The Court found it common ground that the trial judgment was delivered in favour of the Claimant, that it was overturned on appeal, and that the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, decree and all consequential orders. The Claimant did not dispute receiving the decretal sum and costs. Since the judgment underpinning those payments was reversed entirely, there is no reason for the Claimant to retain money which does not belong to it.
Whether the Claimant's objections - late notice of appeal, delay, multiple applications, and expenditure of the funds - defeat restitution
The objections were held to be irrelevant to the application for restitution
The Court held that issues about the late notice of appeal, the appeal being filed seven years after judgment, multiple applications for review and stay, and expenditure of the decretal sum on trade union activities were completely irrelevant to restitution. The Claimant knowingly and successfully applied to release the decretal sum while the appeal was pending, which was imprudent. Retention of the money would render the appeal a meaningless judicial exercise and a pyrrhic victory for the Respondent.
Whether a pending intention to seek review of the Court of Appeal judgment justifies non-restitution
No - absent actual review orders from a superior jurisdiction, the appellate judgment binds this Court
Relying on Oyatsi v. Nzoia Sugar Company Limited, the Court held that where no orders of review or recall and cancellation of the Court of Appeal judgment have been obtained, non-restitution cannot be justified. The appellate judgment is valid and binding, granted by a superior jurisdiction; if it is legally subject to review, that is not for this Court to determine. Procedural infirmities, if any, ought to have been addressed on appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Restitution is a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment; a party who has received money under a judgment subsequently reversed in its entirety must return it, even if the money has been spent
- A subordinate court must abide by a valid and binding judgment of a superior court on appeal; procedural infirmities in the appellate judgment are matters for the appellate court, and cannot justify non-restitution
Court orders
#- 1.The application filed by the Respondent dated 16th August 2024 is allowed
- 2.The Claimant shall immediately refund the Respondent the decretal sum of Kshs. 4,047,160.50, with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from 15th January 2018, till payment is made in full
- 3.The Claimant shall immediately refund the Respondent the sum paid as costs at Kshs. 225,259.75, paid on 8th November 2021, together with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from 8th November 2021, till payment is made in full
- 4.This file shall be marked as closed, upon the full restitution
- 5.No order on the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal, Nakuru
- Appeal No. 46 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly invoked in the judgment as supplied; the application for restitution arises from the Court of Appeal's reversal of the ELRC trial judgment under Section 19(6) of the Employment Act
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The Court made no order on the costs of the application
Costs
No order on the costs of the application.
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.
Restitution is a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment. It is a remedy for disgorgement of a benefit which is found to have been obtained without a legal basis.
It is immaterial that the Claimant has spent the money on its own activities. It spent money which does not belong to it.
If the Claimant is allowed to retain the money, it would mean that the appeal was a meaningless judicial exercise, and a pyrrhic victory for the Respondent.
The Claimant shall immediately refund the Respondent the decretal sum of Kshs. 4,047,160.50, with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from 15th January 2018, till payment is made in full.
The Claimant shall immediately refund the Respondent the sum paid as costs at Kshs. 225,259.75, paid on 8th November 2021, together with interest at the rate of 14% p.a. from 8th November 2021, till payment is made in full.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case title, case number or neutral citation of the cause before the Court
The judgment inconsistently states the decretal sum deposited/paid out as Kshs. 4,047,160 while paragraph 3 quantified the dues at Kshs. 4,047,165.60; the final order uses Kshs. 4,047,160.50
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Transport Workers Union [K] v Lochab Brothers Limited (Cause 414 of 2013) [2025] KEELRC 710 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as supplied. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/710/eng@2025-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.