V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1674 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Employment and Labour Relations Court dismissed Roy Hauliers' bid to stop a law firm from recovering taxed costs because the company ignored a court condition to deposit the disputed money.
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 had satisfied the conditions for a stay of execution of the Rulings of 20 and 27 February 2025 and non-enforcement of the proclamation dated 27 March 2025
- 2.Whether the payment of Kshs 969,104/- made on 16 May 2023 was part payment of taxed advocates' costs or security for a stay pending appeal in Cause No. 1818 of 2019
- 3.Whether the Respondent, having failed to comply with the condition attached to the interim stay, could sustain the Motion
Key legal issues
#Stay of execution where interim orders were not granted at the ex-parte stage
Orders sought to preserve the status quo pending inter-partes hearing lapsed or became overtaken by events when not granted ex-parte
The court reasoned that all the orders pleaded by the Respondent were transient and intended to preserve the status quo only pending the inter-partes hearing; once they were not granted at the ex-parte stage they became overtaken by events, leaving nothing to adjudicate on that limb of the Motion.
Character of the payment of Kshs 969,104/-
The payment was security for a stay of execution pending appeal in Cause No. 1818 of 2019 (Japheth Simiyu v Roy Hauliers), not part settlement of the taxed advocates' costs
The advocate produced records showing the payment of 16 May 2023 related to security of costs pending an appeal in Cause No. 1818 of 2019, a matter distinct from the taxed advocate/client Bill of Costs of 30 September 2024. The temporal and contextual discrepancy showed the payment could not ground a claim of part-settlement of costs.
Effect of failure to comply with a condition attached to interim relief
Failure to deposit the sum in court or provide a bank guarantee as conditioned disentitled the Respondent from the discretionary relief
The court had granted an interim stay on condition that the Respondent deposit Kshs 969,104/- in court or provide a bank guarantee by 10 April 2025. The Respondent did not comply. A party invoking the court's discretion must show bona fides by complying with such conditions; non-compliance was fatal to the Motion.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking an exercise of the court's discretion should demonstrate bona fides by complying with conditions attached to interim orders
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 3 April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate
- 2.This Ruling/orders to apply in all the files enumerated in paragraph 1(iii)
- 3.This file is designated Lead File, and any further application should be made herein
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court's discretionary jurisdiction over stay of execution of its own rulings (not expressly stated in the judgment)
- Consolidated with
- Misc. E227/2024, Misc. E230/2024, Misc. E237/2024, Misc. E238/2024, Misc. E239/2024, Misc. E240/2024, Misc. E224/2024, Misc. E231/2024, Misc. E232/2024, Misc. E234/2024, Misc. E235/2024, Misc. E236/2024, Misc. E24/2024
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the Rulings made on 20th and 27th February 2025 and non-enforcement of the proclamation dated 27 March 2025
The orders sought were transient interlocutory orders that lapsed when not granted ex-parte; the payment of Kshs 969,104/- was security in a different cause, not part settlement of costs; and the Respondent failed to comply with the condition to deposit the sum in court or provide a bank guarantee, thus lacking bona fides
Costs
The Motion dated 3 April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate.
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 Motion dated 3 April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate.
As a party seeking an exercise of the Court's discretion, the Respondent should have demonstrated bona fides by complying with the order.
To avoid the possibility of embarrassing outcomes, the Court directs that any future applications, if any, should be filed in this Cause/file, which is now titled Lead File.
Issues in the judgment
#The cause number of the Lead File itself is not expressly stated; only the related miscellaneous application numbers are listed
Minor internal inconsistency in dates of the proclamation: the Motion seeks non-enforcement of a proclamation dated 27 March 2025 while the grounds refer to a proclamation dated 28 March 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V Chokaa & Co Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E236 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1674 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Employment and Labour Relations Miscellaneous Application (Lead File, encompassing Misc. E227/2024, E230/2024, E237/2024, E238/2024, E239/2024, E240/2024, E224/2024, E231/2024, E232/2024, E234/2024, E235/2024, E236/2024 and E24/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1674/eng@2025-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.