Kiscol suffers setback: Court orders immediate settlement of Sh774,624 decretal amount

Kwale International Sugar Company Ltd (Kiscol) suffered a setback after a court rejected its application seeking to settle a Sh774,641 decretal amount against it in monthly installments for 12 months citing financial difficulties.

The decree was issued in favour of Mr Stephen Baya who obtained judgment against Kiscol almost four years ago though it was partially overturned on July 12, 2024, at the Court of Appeal.

Justice Ocharo Kebira of the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Mombasa ruled that Kiscol did not provide sufficient evidence to suggest that its financial situation genuinely prevents them from paying the money at once.

The court noted that Kiscol currently spends Sh1 million per month for maintenance of its trucks and machinery and the purchase of diesel to run them thus it is not correct to assert that it is unable to settle the decretal amount at once.

“The respondent (Kiscol) has not produced to court bank statements and books of account from which it can be discerned that it is suffering from a financial downturn and is not able to settle the sum at once,” ruled Justice Kebira.

The judge said that in his view, once the court issues a decree in favour of a party, the legitimate expectation is that the successful party should be allowed to realize the fruits of it (decree) without hindrance.

This, the court notes is unless the decree has been stayed (suspended) or set aside for reasons recognized by law.

“A judgment debtor (a person/entity which the decree is against) should only be allowed to settle the decretal sum by installments where sufficient and credible grounds have been established,” ruled the court.

It added that mere assertion of financial incapacity to pay the money at once are not in themselves adequate justification for such relief.

The court further added that permitting an application for payment in installments constitutes a discretionary order granted based on specific circumstances of each case and not influenced by compassion, caprice or whimsical considerations.

Justice Kebira noted that the court has not lost sight of the fact that the dispute has been in the court system for a period of approximately ten years.

“Considering the duration this matter has been before court, the justice of this case and public policy do not support granting the order sought by the respondent,” ruled the court dismissing the application by Kiscol as lacking merit.

The court had been told that Kiscol through its lawyer had written a letter to the claimant (Mr Baya) lawyer proposing to settle the amount in installments.

However, the claimant’s lawyer responded stating that the proposal was unreasonable and that it was not acceptable.