Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedMiscellaneous Application arising from Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 347 of 2012

Cedar Pharmacare & 2 others v Onyango (Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1683 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
10 June 2025
RSRadido Stephen
834 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

If someone refuses your settlement payment in Kenya, you can deposit the money in court and your debt counts as fully paid.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a Motion dated 5 February 2025 by the applicants (judgment debtors in ELRC Cause No. 347 of 2012, Jeckoniah Onyango v Cedar Pharmacare Ltd & 2 Others, decided by Radido Stephen J on 24 February 2020) seeking leave to deposit Kshs 179,423/- in Court as full and final settlement of the decretal sum. The applicants had tendered a cheque which the respondent/decree holder refused to accept. The respondent opposed, contending that he was entitled to interest at 12% per annum under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act because the applicants had delayed nearly four years before attempting settlement, relying on Kipchumba v BOG Tambach Teachers Training College. The applicants, relying on Janedra Raichard Shah & 2 Ors v Mistri Valji Naran Samat and Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, submitted that the trial court had not awarded interest and that no review had been sought. The court noted two procedural defects: Nyauchi & Co. Advocates had not obtained leave under Order 9 rule 9 to come on record, and the Motion should have been filed in the cause rather than as a Miscellaneous Motion. On the merits, the court held that a party may deposit decretal sums into Court where the decree holder refuses payment, that section 26 interest is discretionary and none had been awarded, and that Kipchumba was distinguishable because there the trial court had awarded interest without stating a rate. The Motion was allowed: the applicants were to deposit the decretal sum by 26 June 2025, upon which they would be deemed to have fully and finally satisfied the decree, with costs of the Motion to the applicants.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicants may deposit the decretal sum into Court under Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules notwithstanding the respondent's refusal to accept a settlement cheque
  2. 2.Whether the respondent is entitled to interest on the decretal sum under section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether deposit of the decretal sum into Court satisfies the decree

Holding

Yes; the Motion was allowed and deposit deemed full and final satisfaction of the decree

Reasoning

The respondent declined the applicants' settlement cheque. Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits a party to deposit the decretal sum into Court in settlement of a decree, as supported by the authority the applicants cited. The court thus deemed the deposit full compliance with the judgment debtors' obligation.

p. 2
02

Whether interest on the decretal sum was payable

Holding

No; the judgment did not award interest and no application for interest or review was pending

Reasoning

Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act makes interest discretionary. The 24 February 2020 judgment did not award interest. The respondent neither sought review nor filed any application seeking the court's discretion to award interest, so Kipchumba, which dealt only with an unstated rate where interest had been awarded, did not apply.

p. 2
03

Procedural propriety of the Motion

Holding

The court noted two defects: advocates came on record without leave under Order 9 rule 9, and the Motion should have been made in the cause, not as a Miscellaneous Motion

Reasoning

Despite finding that Nyauchi & Co. Advocates lacked leave under Order 9 rule 9 and that the Motion ought to have been filed in Cause No. 347 of 2012, the court did not strike the application out and proceeded to determine it on the merits.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A judgment debtor may deposit decretal sums awarded by the Court into Court where the decree holder refuses payment
  • Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act confers a discretion to award interest which must be invoked by an application; it is not automatic
  • Kipchumba is distinguishable where the trial court never awarded interest at all

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicants are to deposit the decretal sum of Kshs 179,423/- into the Court on or before the end of 26 June 2025
  2. 2.Upon the deposit, the applicants are deemed to have fully and finally satisfied the decree
  3. 3.The applicants are to have the costs of the Motion

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

RS
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Civil Procedure Act, section 26, and Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; original jurisdiction in the cause ELRC No. 347 of 2012

Relief refused

#

Respondent's prayer for interest at 12% per annum on the decretal sum

The trial court did not award interest, and the respondent made no application for interest or review of that aspect before moving for interest in this Motion

p. 2

Costs

The applicants are to have the costs of the Motion.

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 applicants are to deposit the decretal sum of Kshs 179,423/- into the Court on or before the end of 26 June 2025.
p. 3final orders - deposit of decretal sum
Upon the deposit, the applicants are deemed to have fully and finally satisfied the decree.
p. 3final orders - satisfaction of decree
it is open to a judgment creditor to deposit into the Court any decretal sums awarded by the Court
p. 2deposit in satisfaction of decree
section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act allows the Court to award interest. In the instant case, the Court did not award interest
p. 2interest discretionary

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment states 'judgment creditor' where the party depositing is the judgment debtor (the applicants), an apparent internal error

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Cedar Pharmacare & 2 others v Onyango (Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1683 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application arising from Nairobi ELRC Cause No. 347 of 2012. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1683/eng@2025-06-10

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.