Sikuku v Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed KNTC's attempt to shield its bank account from debt recovery because it withheld key documents until after losing, which judges treat as abusing the process.
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 instant application seeking review, variation or setting aside of the orders issued on 30th July 2026 is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the review application met the Rule 74 threshold
It did not; the applicant had the information and documents at its disposal before the ruling but failed to avail them, defeating the claim of discovery of new and important matter
The court found the bank statements and invoices relied upon were all in existence before the 30th July 2026 ruling but were not produced. The applicant's own supporting affidavit admitted the court lacked the documentary trail, an admission it had the information but neglected to avail it. This undermined the Rule 74(1)(a) basis and amounted to litigating in instalments and failure to discharge the burden of proof under Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the application was filed within reasonable time
Yes; it was filed on the date the ruling was delivered
The court found the application was filed on the very date the challenged ruling was issued, satisfying the reasonable-time requirement, noting that reasonable time is a question of fact dependent on circumstances.
Inconsistency in the statutory basis invoked
The grounds invoked Rule 74(1)(a) while the supporting affidavit suggested Rule 74(1)(c)
The court observed the discrepancy between the grounds and the affidavit but proceeded to determine the application on the merits, finding it failed on the evidence regardless of the sub-rule invoked.
Legal principles established
#- A party seeking review must show that new evidence, despite due diligence, could not be produced when the order was made; withholding available evidence and later seeking review is litigating in instalments and an abuse of process
- What constitutes reasonable time for a review application is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's application dated 30th July 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Parties shall bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 16 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act and Rule 74 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Review, variation or setting aside of the orders of 30th July 2026 permitting recovery of the decretal sum from the ABSA Bank account
Application devoid of merit; applicant had the relevant information at its disposal but failed to avail it, amounting to litigating in instalments
Discharge of the Garnishee Order Nisi/Absolute and release of the ABSA account from attachment
Fell with the dismissal of the application
Declaration that funds in the ABSA account are rice-sale proceeds not beneficially available to KNTC
Evidence was in existence before the ruling but not produced; unauthenticated bank statement inadmissible
Costs
Parties shall bear their 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.
it is discernible that the Applicants application dated 30th July 2026 is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Clearly, this was an unequivocal admission that the applicant had the information at its disposal but failed, refused or neglected to avail it which significantly undermines the instant application.
The applicant by bringing this application is in effect approaching the courts by trial-and-error method and is litigating by instalment, both which are unacceptable and amount to abuse of the court process of the court.
Issues in the judgment
#Application styled Judicial Review but is a garnishee review motion
COVID-19 directions referenced in a 2026 ruling
Decretal figures differ between prayer (Kshs.5,848,836) and affidavit (Kshs.5,648,836)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sikuku v Kenya National Trading Corporation (KNTC)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review E203 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2487/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.