[2024] KEHC 16224 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 16224 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had made diligent efforts to execute the decree, including service of notices to show cause and attempts to attach the respondent's assets, all of which were unsuccessful. The court held that the application for attachment of salary was merited, as the respondent had been duly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 16224 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Anthony Etabale Choli; Respondent: Cleopas Kirwa Sang
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 52 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Attachment of Salary and Allowances
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
AC Bett
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Attachment of Salary, Notice to Show Cause, Money Judgments
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Attachment of Salary Notice to Show Cause Money Judgments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Etabale Choli

Appellant

Cleopas Kirwa Sang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Attachment of Salary and Allowances

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an order for attachment of the respondent's salary and allowances to satisfy the decree.
  2. 2 Whether the application is fatally defective for citing the wrong legal provisions.
  3. 3 What proportion of the respondent's salary is liable to attachment under the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had made diligent efforts to execute the decree, including service of notices to show cause and attempts to attach the respondent's assets, all of which were unsuccessful. The court held that the application for attachment of salary was merited, as the respondent had been duly served and had not satisfied the judgment. The court applied Order 22 rule 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 44 of the Civil Procedure Act, which limit the attachable portion of a salary to one-third. The court further invoked Article 159(2) of the Constitution to disregard the applicant's citation of the wrong legal provisions, emphasizing substantive justice over...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • One third of the respondent's monthly salary and allowances shall be deducted and withheld, and remitted to the applicant's bank account as specified in the application, until full and final settlement of the decretal sum, interest, and costs.