Kimengich v East Africa Breweries Limited & 2 others (Cause E296 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2440 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to lift attachment warrants because the employer had not paid interest awarded on the judgment, so the decree remained unsettled.
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 set aside the warrants of attachment and sale issued on 12 March 2025
- 2.Whether the Respondents stand fully and finally discharged from all claims arising from the suit, having fully settled the decree
- 3.Whether the decree, including interest at court rates, has been fully settled
Key legal issues
#Whether the decree had been fully and finally settled so as to discharge the Respondents and justify setting aside the warrants
The decree was not fully settled; the main payment did not account for interest at court rates awarded in the judgment, and the taxed costs were only paid after execution was levied
The Court chronologically traced the payments: a decree of Kshs 2,032,747/-, a payment of Kshs 1,699,380/- less statutory deductions, taxation of costs at Kshs 286,871/-, and payment of costs only on 18 March 2025 after warrants were served. The Court had also awarded interest at court rates from the date of judgment until payment in full, and the Respondents never disclosed whether their payment factored in that interest. The Court therefore found the decree unfulfilled.
Whether the warrants of attachment should be set aside notwithstanding non-settlement
The Court declined to set aside the warrants outright but noted the decree was effectively secured by the monies the Respondents deposited in Court, and directed reconciliation
Although the Respondents had not satisfied the decree, they deposited Kshs 721,582/- in Court, which secured the interdict against execution. The Court considered that security sufficient to protect the Claimant pending a reconciliation of outstanding balances, directing the parties to reconcile and either record a consent or move the Court appropriately.
Whether the Claimant's failure to disclose payment when moving to execute affected the application
The Court found the Claimant was under a duty to disclose the payment of Kshs 1,699,380/- but failed to do so, even though this did not result in the relief sought being granted
When the Claimant moved to execute on or around 12 March 2025, the application did not acknowledge that payment of Kshs 1,699,380/- had already been made. The Court held such disclosure was necessary. However, because the Respondents had themselves not fully settled the decree, the non-disclosure did not warrant setting aside the warrants or granting the discharge sought.
Legal principles established
#- A party moving to execute must make full and frank disclosure of payments already made towards the decree
- Payment of the decretal sum less statutory deductions, without interest awarded in the judgment, does not amount to full settlement of the decree
- The Court retains a discretion under Order 22 Rule 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules to remove warrants of attachment where the decree has been settled
Court orders
#- 1.The Court found that the Respondents have not fully settled the decree
- 2.The parties were ordered to conduct a reconciliation on any outstanding balances and reach a consent or move the Court appropriately
- 3.The orders sought in the Motion dated 18 March 2025 were declined with costs to the Claimant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; the Motion was brought in the suit in which a decree had been issued
Relief refused
#Setting aside warrants of attachment and sale issued on 12 March 2025
The Respondents have not fully settled the decree; the decree has instead been secured by monies deposited in Court
Declaration that the Respondents stand fully and finally discharged from all claims arising from the suit
Payment of Kshs 1,699,380/- did not account for interest at court rates, which the judgment had awarded, and the costs were only settled after execution was levied
Costs
The orders sought in the Motion dated 18 March 2025 are declined with costs to the Claimant.
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.
Nine, the Respondents have not fully settled the decree.
The application did not acknowledge that payment of Kshs 1,699,380/- had been made. The disclosure was necessary on the part of the Claimant, but it was not made.
For clarity, the orders sought in the Motion dated 18 March 2025 are declined with costs to the Claimant.
Issues in the judgment
#The name of the Claimant is not disclosed anywhere in the judgment; the parties are referred to only as Claimant and Respondents
The specific prayers (i) and (ii) of the Motion are not reproduced; the judgment quotes only prayers (iii) to (v)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kimengich v East Africa Breweries Limited & 2 others (Cause E296 of 2020) [2025] KEELRC 2440 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Motion dated 18 March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2440/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.