Kenya Power & Lighting Company v Mukala & another (Miscellaneous Application E341 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1275 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya Power won a contempt finding against a judgment creditor who tried to auction its goods despite valid stay orders still being in force.
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 is in contempt of the court's stay of execution order delivered on 20th February 2019
- 2.Whether the stay orders of 20th February 2019 remained in force after the dismissal of the application dated 7th February 2020 as res judicata
- 3.Whether the Applicant complied with the condition to deposit the decretal sum of Kshs. 637,312 in court within 30 days
- 4.Whether the 1st Respondent should be cited, committed to civil jail and punished for contempt
Key legal issues
#Whether the stay orders of 20th February 2019 remained valid and in force
Yes. The Applicant complied with the condition of depositing the decretal sum within 30 days, and the dismissal of the 7th February 2020 application as res judicata left the stay orders intact.
The court found as fact that the decretal sum was deposited on 11th March 2019, within the 30 days allowed by the ruling of 20th February 2019, per exhibit KMM7. The later application dated 7th February 2020 was dismissed by Hon. Judge Mbaru as res judicata precisely because the stay issue had already been determined, which confirmed rather than extinguished the subsisting stay orders. The appeal remained pending before the Court of Appeal.
Whether the respondents' execution steps amounted to contempt
Yes. Proceeding with proclamation, warrants of execution and intended attachment despite subsisting stay orders was a blatant disregard of the court's orders and therefore contemptuous, rendering the respondents guilty and liable to punishment.
Despite compliance by the Applicant, the respondents proclaimed the Applicant's goods vide a proclamation dated 27th February 2020, and later issued warrants through Interfield Auctioneers on 28th October 2024. The court held that since stay orders were in force and the appeal pending, the attempted attachment and proclamation was in blatant disregard of the court's orders and contemptuous, finding the respondents guilty and liable to be punished.
The 1st Respondent's contention that no valid deposit was made and no stay survived the res judicata ruling
Rejected. The court accepted the Applicant's evidence of deposit (KMM7) and held the res judicata dismissal did not invalidate the subsisting stay orders.
The 1st Respondent argued there was no deposit receipt in the registry and that the ruling of 25th February 2020 dismissing the Applicant's application as res judicata meant no valid stay existed. The court rejected this, finding the deposit was made as directed and that the res judicata finding confirmed the stay orders were in force, making the execution attempts contemptuous.
Legal principles established
#- Where valid stay orders are in force, any attempt to proclaim and attach a party's goods is a blatant disregard of the court's orders and constitutes contempt
- Dismissal of a subsequent application as res judicata does not invalidate or vacate existing stay orders
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the respondents are in contempt of the Court's orders of 20th February 2019 and are guilty and liable to be punished by the Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court to enforce obedience of its own orders (Court's orders of 20th February 2019 by Hon. Lady Justice Wasilwa in ELRC No. 301)
Relief refused
#Committal of the 1st Respondent to civil jail for 6 months or until contempt is purged
The court made a finding of contempt but did not, in the disposition, pronounce a committal or punishment order
Notice to the 1st Respondent to show cause why he should not be cited and punished for contempt
Not separately pronounced in the final disposition; the court proceeded directly to a finding of contempt
Costs
No costs order pronounced in the judgment; the Applicant had sought that costs be borne by the Respondent
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.
I do find that the respondents are in contempt of this Court’s orders and are therefore guilty and liable to be punished by Court.
The attempt to proclaim and attach the respondent’s goods is in blatant disregard to this Court’s orders and therefore contemptuous.
The applicant indeed deposited the decretal sum as directed before expiry of other 30 days granted by Court on 20/2/2019.
That indeed was true as orders of stay were in force and the appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the res judicata ruling dismissing the 7th February 2020 application was delivered on 25th February 2020 in some passages and 18/2/21 in another, an internal inconsistency in dates
The parties are inconsistently referred to as 'respondents' in the court's analysis despite the motion being framed against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and the finding of guilt is not followed by any committal or punishment order in the disposition
The 1st Respondent's submission quotes the date of the Applicant's notice of appeal as 22nd October 2018 in the Applicant's averments but 23rd October 2018 elsewhere
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Power & Lighting Company v Mukala & another (Miscellaneous Application E341 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1275 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2024 in ELRC No. 301: Alexander Kasina Mukala vs Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1275/eng@2025-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.