Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedCause No. E078 of 2023 (consolidated with E080 of 2023, E077 of 2023 and E079 of 2023)

Otieno & 3 others v Bandari Football Club (Cause E078, E080, E077 & E079 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2576 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
25 September 2025
MMM. Mbaru
889 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed attaching a third party's vehicle was unlawful, but denied compensation because the owner proved no actual financial loss.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa, delivered by M. Mbaru J on 25 September 2025, determines an objector's application dated 4 July 2025 in consolidated Cause No. E078 of 2023 (with Causes E077, E079 and E080 of 2023). The objector, a state corporation acting through Michael Sangoro, general manager legal services, complained that the claimants as decree holders, through M/S M. N. Mwanik t/a Anfield Auctioneers, had wrongfully attached and removed its motor vehicle KDK 964P in execution of a decree. It sought return of the vehicle, compensation for loss of use at Ksh.20,000 per day, and costs. The court held that execution under warrants of attachment is lawful and that decree holders and auctioneers act as agents of the court, but that irregular execution against a third party's property negates the essence of execution proceedings. Ownership of the vehicle by the objector was unchallenged and the attachment was held irregular. The vehicle had already been returned pursuant to a court order, rendering the return limb of the application spent. On damages, the court, applying the Court of Appeal authorities on loss of use as general damages provable on a balance of probabilities, found that the objector had adduced no evidence quantifying the alleged loss and refused compensation. The application was declared spent, with each party bearing its own costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the attachment and removal of motor vehicle KDK 964P, property of the objector (a third party), was lawful
  2. 2.Whether the objector is entitled to compensation for loss of use of the vehicle at Ksh.20,000 per day
  3. 3.Who should bear the costs of the application

Key legal issues

#
01

Lawfulness of attachment of a third party's property in execution

Holding

The attachment of the objector's vehicle was irregular since ownership was unchallenged and the vehicle was not the judgment debtor's

Reasoning

The court affirmed that warrants of attachment are legitimate judicial process and decree holders act as agents of the court. However, the objector demonstrated ownership of motor vehicle KDK 964P and that ownership was not challenged. Attachment of a third party's property is therefore irregular and unlawful, though the vehicle had already been returned on court order.

p. 2
02

Entitlement to and proof of loss of user damages

Holding

The objector could in principle claim loss of user in these proceedings but failed to prove the alleged loss of Ksh.20,000 per day

Reasoning

Following Samuel Kariuki Nyangoti v Johaan Distelberger and Peter Njuguna Joseph v Anna Moraa, loss of use is general damages provable on a balance of probabilities. The objector, a state corporation using the vehicle to ferry employees daily, ought easily to have quantified its loss, yet adduced no evidence that the loss was Ksh.20,000 per day or anything at all.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Execution under a decree is lawful, but illegal or irregular execution against a third party's property negates the essence of execution proceedings
  • Loss of use of a chattel is a claim in general damages whose standard of proof is a balance of probabilities

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 4 July 2025 is spent
  2. 2.Each party is to meet its own costs

The bench

#

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

MM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original employment and labour relations jurisdiction; execution/objection proceedings arising from a decree of the court
Consolidated with
Cause No. E080 of 2023, Cause No. E077 of 2023, Cause No. E079 of 2023

Relief refused

#

Compensation for loss of use of motor vehicle KDK 964P at Ksh.20,000 per day

The objector failed to prove the alleged loss; the claim was unquantified and unsubstantiated

p. 3

Costs

Each party to meet its own costs

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 application dated 4 July 2025 is spent. Each party is to meet its costs.
p. 3Final orders and costs
The objector has demonstrated ownership of motor vehicle No. KDK 964P this is not challenged. The attachment of this vehicle is irregular.
p. 2Irregular execution against third-party property
The standard of proof in such claims is on balance of probabilities and the principle of restitutio in integrum is applied in such cases.
p. 2Standard of proof for loss of user claims

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The full name of the objector party is not stated anywhere in the judgment; it is identified only as an objector and a state corporation through its deponent Michael Sangoro

minor

The judgment states the objector claimed loss of use for 2 days at Ksh.20,000 per day, whereas the application as pleaded sought compensation 'until the same is returned' without a stated period

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Otieno & 3 others v Bandari Football Club (Cause E078, E080, E077 & E079 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELRC 2576 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Cause No. E078 of 2023 (consolidated with E080 of 2023, E077 of 2023 and E079 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2576/eng@2025-09-25

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