[2019] KEHC 1188 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 1188 (KLR)

The court found that the objectors had provided sufficient evidence, including motor vehicle registration and lack of contrary evidence from the decree-holder, to establish that the attached goods did not belong to the judgment debtors. The familial relationship and shared residence did not, in themselves, justify extending execution to the objectors' property. The court emphasized that execution should only be levied against the property of the judgment debtor, and not against third parties, unless there is clear evidence of an attempt to defeat justice. As such, the objection succeeded and the attachment was lifted.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 1188 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charlene Njeri Kuria; Defendant: Simon Gitu Mbirua; Defendant: Geoffrey Gitu; Objector: Francis Kaimiru Gitu; Objector: Dinal Wachechi Gitu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
14 November 2019
Case Number
Civil Case 295 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Objection Proceedings Under Order 22 Rules 51 and 52
Outcome
objection allowed; attachment lifted
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgments, Objection Proceedings, Attachment of Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Objection Proceedings Attachment of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlene Njeri Kuria

Plaintiff

Simon Gitu Mbirua

Defendant

Geoffrey Gitu

Defendant

Francis Kaimiru Gitu

Objector

Dinal Wachechi Gitu

Objector

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Objection Proceedings Under Order 22 Rules 51 and 52

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the objectors have established ownership of the attached goods on a balance of probabilities.
  2. 2 Whether the attached goods belong to the judgment debtors or to the objectors.
  3. 3 Whether the execution of the decree should extend to the objectors' property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the objectors had provided sufficient evidence, including motor vehicle registration and lack of contrary evidence from the decree-holder, to establish that the attached goods did not belong to the judgment debtors. The familial relationship and shared residence did not, in themselves, justify extending execution to the objectors' property. The court emphasized that execution should only be levied against the property of the judgment debtor, and not against third parties, unless there is clear evidence of an attempt to defeat justice. As such, the objection succeeded and the attachment was lifted.

Court Disposition

objection allowed; attachment lifted

Orders

  • The objection is allowed.
  • The proclamation and attachment of the objectors' goods is lifted forthwith.