Akello v Rural Development Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 554 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 878 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court dismissed a former director's bid to stop attachment of his property, ruling a dissolved company cannot file applications and delayed stay requests fail.
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 and lift the proclamation/attachment levied on the applicant's household items pending hearing of the application and of the pending applications dated 26.10.2022 and 19.10.2023
- 2.Whether the instant application for review/stay was filed after inordinate delay and without a known ground for review
- 3.Whether an application can properly be filed on behalf of a company that had been dissolved
Key legal issues
#Whether stay of execution should issue pending determination of the pending applications dated 26.10.2022 and 19.10.2023
Stay was refused because earlier conditional stay orders had lapsed on non-compliance, the decree remained unsatisfied past the 15.08.2024 deadline, and no ground for review was disclosed
The court traced the chronology: temporary stay was granted on 01.11.2023 conditional on deposit of the decretal sum; time was extended to 02.05.2024; on 07.05.2024 the directors were given until 15.08.2024 to satisfy the decree failing which execution would issue. The deadline passed with no compliance and no offer to settle, so execution properly issued. The present application was a delay tactic.
Whether the applicant, suing for a dissolved company, had capacity to bring the application
The application failed because the company on whose behalf it was filed was dissolved in June 2019 and no longer existed as a legal person
The court noted that the 19.10.2023, 26.10.2022 and 26.02.2025 applications were all filed for and on behalf of the company, yet the ruling of 31.07.2023 recorded that the company had voluntarily dissolved during the pendency of the suit (in June 2019). A non-existent party cannot institute or sustain proceedings, so the application had to collapse.
Legal principles established
#- Execution in accordance with subsisting court orders that have not been set aside in review or appeal is lawful and applications to stop it made after inordinate delay and without a disclosed ground for review will be dismissed
- Court process cannot be taken out in the name of a company that has been dissolved and no longer exists
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26.02.2025 is dismissed with no costs
- 2.The applicant is at liberty to appeal or move the Court of Appeal as appropriate
- 3.Temporary stay of execution until 04.04.2025, as may be necessary
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 22, 40, 45 and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Articles 25(c), 50(1) and 159(d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the decree dated 31.01.2020 and warrants of attachment dated 15.02.2025 pending hearing and determination of the applications dated 26.10.2022 and 19.10.2023
The court's earlier orders directing the directors to satisfy the decree by 15.08.2024 were never set aside, were not complied with, and the application was filed after inordinate delay without disclosing a known ground for review
The whole application insofar as it was brought for and on behalf of a dissolved company
The company had been dissolved in June 2019 and therefore did not exist; the application was filed for a non-existent party
Costs
The application is dismissed with no costs (each party to bear own costs in respect of the dismissed 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.
In conclusion the application dated 26.02.2025 is hereby determined with orders as follows: a. The application is dismissed with no costs. b. The applicant at liberty to appeal or move the Court of Appeal as appropriate and there be a temporary stay of execution until 04.04.2025, as may be necessary.
The Court finds that the instant application for review was filed after inordinate delay and it has not disclosed any known ground for review.
How then can an application be filed for a none existing Company or party? As the applicant appears not to exist at all, the application is liable to dismissal with no costs.
That Svein Rene, Max Joachim Seifert, Eunice Adhiambo, Danson Ligare Lung'atso, Sissel Austra Rene, being former directors of the Respondent herein and having voluntarily dissolved the said company during the pendency of this suit, are jointly and severally personally liable to pay the Applicant as per the decree of this Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the directors' liability ruling: the respondent's replying affidavit states the ruling was delivered on 31.08.2023 while the court's own recital states 31.07.2023 was the delivery date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Akello v Rural Development Solutions Limited (Employment and Labour Relations Cause 554 of 2015) [2025] KEELRC 878 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 26.02.2025 (Notice of Motion) in the principal suit. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/878/eng@2025-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.