[2025] KEHC 7645 (KLR)
The court found that while Joni Consult Auctioneers acted in contempt of the stay order by removing the appellant's property after being present in court when the order was issued, there was no evidence of personal service of the order upon them. Consequently, the court refrained from convicting them for contempt at...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 7645 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Directline Assurance Company Limited; Respondent: Elijah Omolloh Okwanyson; Respondent: Nilam Enterprises; Interested Party: Joni Consult Auctioneers; Interested Party: DOE Anyul & Company Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E133 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Contempt Application and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- Partial grant of application; contempt not established at this stage; costs awarded to exonerated advocate.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Stay of Execution, Warrants of Attachment, Auctioneer Conduct
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Directline Assurance Company Limited
Appellant
Elijah Omolloh Okwanyson
Respondent
Nilam Enterprises
Respondent
Joni Consult Auctioneers
Interested Party
DOE Anyul & Company Advocates
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Contempt Application and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Joni Consult Auctioneers and D. O. Anyul & Company Advocates were in contempt of court orders issued on 28/5/2025.
- 2 Whether the warrants of attachment issued by the trial court were excessive and contrary to the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether the auctioneers should be compelled to return the attached items to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while Joni Consult Auctioneers acted in contempt of the stay order by removing the appellant's property after being present in court when the order was issued, there was no evidence of personal service of the order upon them. Consequently, the court refrained from convicting them for contempt at this stage but issued summons for them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. The court also ordered the auctioneers to return the attached items to the appellant at their own cost within 24 hours of service. D. O. Anyul & Company Advocates were exonerated from contempt allegations and struck out from the proceedings, with costs awarded in their favor.
Court Disposition
Partial grant of application; contempt not established at this stage; costs awarded to exonerated advocate.
Orders
- Summons issued to Joni Consult Auctioneers to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
- Joni Consult Auctioneers to return the attached items to the appellant at their own cost within 24 hours of service of the order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
Directline Assurance Company Limited v Okwanyson & another; Joni Consult Auctioneers & another (Interested Parties) (Civil Appeal E133 of 2023) [2025] KEHC 7645 (KLR) (4 June 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 7645 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Kisumu
Civil Appeal E133 of 2023
A Mabeya, J
June 4, 2025
Between
Directline Assurance Company Limited
Appellant
and
Elijah Omolloh Okwanyson
1st Respondent
Nilam Enterprises
2nd Respondent
and
Joni Consult Auctioneers
Interested Party
DOE Anyul & Company Advocates
Interested Party
Ruling
1. On 17/5/2024, Aburili J delivered a Judgment in this matter which is on record.
2. On 20/5/2025, the trial court issued a warrant of attachment of the appellant’s moveable property to Joni Consult Auctioneers of P. O. Box xxxx - 40100, Kisumu. The warrants were categorical that the decretal sum was for Kshs.18,910,000/-. The balance thereof was indicated to be the same, Kshs.18,910,000/-. Interest was shown to be Kshs.11,346,000/-. The warrants were for a total sum of Kshs.30,256,000/-.
3. Faced with the proclamation dated 21/5/2025, the appellant rushed to this Court on 26/5/2025 seeking a temporary stay. One of the grounds for stay was that the amount in the warrants were excessive since a guarantee of Kshs.17. 5 million ordered by Aburili J for stay in October, 2023 had been encashed. That the said amount had not been taken into account in the said warrants.
4. The Court set down the Motion for directions on 28/5/2025 when all the parties appeared. For reasons of the illegal warrants, which were drawn and issued contrary to the provisions of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, this Court granted a temporary stay of execution of those warrants pending the hearing interpartes of the Motion on 24/6/2025.
5. On 29/5/2025, the appellant took out yet another Motion on Notice seeking to cite the firm of D. O. Anyul & Company Advocates and Joni Consult Auctioneers for contempt of that order. It was contended that all the parties knew of the orders as they were present during the proceedings of 28/5/2025. That notwithstanding that orders, the auctioneers had on 29/5/2025 removed the proclaimed items.
6. I have considered the record, the representations by the parties. There is no evidence that Joni Consult Auctioneers were personally served with the order. However, it is clear that they must have received instructions from the 1st respondent on whose behalf they were acting yet he knew of the order. Since they acted in contempt of that order, they must be made to understand that Court orders are not mere suggestions or mere declarations. They are directives that MUST be obeyed by all and sundry.
7. Knowing the consequences of finding them in contempt at this stage and for reason of absence of evidence of personal service, I refrain from convicting them at the moment. But I hereby issue summons to JONI CONSULT AUCTIONEERS, to appear before this Court physically on 24/6/2025 to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and be sentenced accordingly. There would be also consequences on their Licence to practice auctioneering as they have shown to be unfit to be Court officers when they do not consider or respect court orders.
8. Further, I grant prayer No. 3 of the Motion dated 29/5/2025 and direct that the same be complied with within 24 hours of service upon the Auctioneers being served with the order. The auctioneers are to return the said items to the appellant at their own costs and expense.
9. As regards, D. O. Anyul & Company Advocates, it only unfortunate that they have been dragged into this mud. They are a reputable Law firm practicing Kisumu. Mr. Anyul has clearly indicated that the said firm cannot and has never either disobeyed a Court order or advised any of its clients to do so. While I appreciate Ms. Muithraniah’s apology and regret, that cannot assuage or compensate the damage caused by the insinuation that the said Advocates have run rogue and committed a contempt of court.
10. Accordingly, I strike out the name of D. O. Anyul & Company Advocates from these proceedings. Having opposed the same, they are entitled to costs of Kshs.25,000 payable within 14 days of today’s date.
It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025. A. MABEYA, FCI ARBJUDGE