Bunde & 10 others v Family Health Options Kenya (Cause E161 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2082 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employer tried to stop garnishee execution by claiming a settlement was fully paid, but without proof of payment the court ordered it to pay up.
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 ex-parte orders issued on 12th March 2025, including the garnishee orders, should be stayed/set aside on the ground that the matter had been fully settled
- 2.Whether the Applicant (Respondent in the suit) demonstrated that the amounts due under the consent order of 8th November 2023 were fully paid
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant proved full settlement of the sums due under the consent order of 8th November 2023
The court found the Applicant had not demonstrated that the payments due, computed from the consent figures less tax, had been fully made; the application was therefore unmerited
The court compared the consent order figures against the Applicant's admitted payment of Kshs. 3,529,114. The consent-based computation totaled Kshs. 6,434,016 before tax. Deducting tax, the admitted payment still left an outstanding balance. The Applicant did not show how the shortfall had been discharged, so the claim that the matter was fully settled failed and the stay could not issue.
Whether the ex-parte garnishee orders of 12th March 2025 should be stayed or set aside
Stay was declined; the Applicant was ordered to pay what is due, failing which execution to proceed
The Applicant argued the applications were obtained to mislead the court after full settlement. The court found the settlement incomplete, so there was no basis to stay or set aside the ex-parte orders. The Applicant, having been served with the executory orders and electing not to appear, could not show sufficient reason to displace the garnishee orders.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking to set aside ex-parte orders must demonstrate that the underlying obligation has been satisfied; absent proof of payment of the amounts due under a consent order, stay/set-aside applications are unmerited.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2025 declined
- 2.The Respondent/Applicant directed to pay up what is due to the Claimants, in default of which execution to proceed
- 3.Costs of the application awarded to the Claimants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2016
Relief refused
#Stay of the ex-parte orders issued on 12th March 2025 in the garnishee proceedings
The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the amounts due under the consent order of 8th November 2023 had been fully settled
Costs
Costs to the claimants.
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 my finding that the respondents have not demonstrated how they have settled the payments and so the application they seek before court is untenable and unmerited.
I decline to grant any stay order and direct the respondents to pay up what is due in default execution to proceed. Costs to the claimants.
Issues in the judgment
#The motion and judgment inconsistently describe the parties - the Applicant moving to set aside orders refers to the Claimants as 'Respondents' and vice versa, making the roles confusing
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bunde & 10 others v Family Health Options Kenya (Cause E161 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2082 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 11th March 2025 (ELRC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2082/eng@2025-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.