V. Chokaa & Co., Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1675 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Roy Hauliers lost its bid to stop a Kshs 2.3 million decree after the court ruled it cannot deny the very jurisdiction it had already used.
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 stay execution of the decree issued on 20th and 27th February 2025 for Kshs. 2,287,511.05/-
- 2.Whether the Court should review and set aside its judgment and decree of 20th and 27th February 2025 for lack of jurisdiction
- 3.Whether, in the alternative, the Court should withdraw the orders in the said judgment and decree due to lack of jurisdiction
- 4.Which file should serve as the lead file for related applications
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Motion
The Court declined to entertain the jurisdictional challenge as disingenuous; the Respondent had previously invoked the same Court's jurisdiction in a Reference and in a stay application without raising the objection
The Court noted the Respondent had itself filed a Reference on 15 October 2024 seeking setting aside of taxation, and a Motion dated 3 April 2025 seeking stay, in neither of which jurisdiction was questioned. A party cannot approbate and reprobate; having moved the same Court repeatedly, the Respondent was estopped from now denying its jurisdiction. The proper remedy was appeal.
Whether the judgment and decree should be reviewed or set aside for want of jurisdiction
Refused
The Court held it would be a legal marvel to grant orders of review to a party asserting the Court lacked jurisdiction, since a court without jurisdiction cannot validly take any step in proceedings, including granting the very relief sought. The remedy lay in appeal, not review before the allegedly incompetent forum.
Case management of related files
Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024 designated the lead file; all further applications to be filed there
The Respondent had been filing applications in related files without synchronisation, with applications placed before different Courts, risking inconsistent outcomes. To prevent an embarrassing outcome, the Court designated E236 of 2024 as lead file and directed all further applications to be filed there.
Legal principles established
#- A party cannot simultaneously invoke a court's jurisdiction and deny it; a court without jurisdiction cannot validly take a step in the proceedings
- A party alleging lack of jurisdiction must pursue appeal rather than ask the same court to review or set aside its own decision
- Where related applications are filed in multiple files without synchronisation, one file may be designated lead file to avoid inconsistent outcomes
Court orders
#- 1.The Motion dated 11 April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate
- 2.This Ruling/orders to apply in all the files enumerated in paragraph 1(iv) above
- 3.Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024, V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers is henceforth designated the lead file
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(a) of the Constitution (jurisdiction of the Employment and Labour Relations Court, as argued by the Respondent); application under the Court's incidental powers
- Consolidated with
- ELRC Misc. Appl. No. E227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 & 241 of 2024 (related files; E236 of 2024 designated lead file)
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the decree of Kshs. 2,287,511.05/-
The Motion was dismissed; the Respondent's lack-of-jurisdiction argument was self-defeating and its proper avenue was appeal
Review and setting aside of the judgment and decree of 20th and 27th February 2025
Respondent could not invoke the Court's jurisdiction for relief while asserting the Court lacked jurisdiction
Withdrawal of the orders in the judgment and decree
Same as above; dismissed with costs
Costs
The Motion dated 11 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.
It is a trite legal principle that a Court without jurisdiction cannot validly take a step in the proceedings.
The Respondent is clearly speaking from both sides of its mouth.
The Motion dated 11 April 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Advocate.
Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024, V. Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Roy Hauliers is henceforth designated the lead file.
This Ruling/orders to apply in all the files enumerated in paragraph 1(iv) above.
Issues in the judgment
#The Motion's opening line says 'For determination is a Motion dated 11 April 2025 by Roy Hauliers (the Respondent)' while the prayers describe the advocate as 'Applicant/Respondent' and Roy Hauliers as 'Respondent/Applicant'; roles are inconsistently labeled
Prayer (iii) repeats prayer (ii) almost verbatim; the prayers appear duplicated
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "V. Chokaa & Co., Advocates v Roy Hauliers (Miscellaneous Cause E241 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1675 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application No. E236 of 2024 (Ruling on Motion dated 11 April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1675/eng@2025-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.