[2018] KEHC 9934 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had represented the respondent in arbitration, the bill of costs had been taxed, and a certificate of taxation issued. There was no dispute that the 1st garnishee was indebted to the respondent in a sum sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount. The respondent's opposition, based...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9934 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Halake Rambo Muthoga & Muiruri Advocate; Respondent: Greenstar Systems Limited; Respondent: Kenyatta International Convention Centre; Respondent: Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd; Respondent: Equity Bank of Kenya Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 519 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Garnishee Application
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Garnishee Proceedings, Execution of Decree, Taxation of Costs
- 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
Halake Rambo Muthoga & Muiruri Advocate
Applicant
Greenstar Systems Limited
Respondent
Kenyatta International Convention Centre
Respondent
Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd
Respondent
Equity Bank of Kenya Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Garnishee Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to execution of the decree by attachment of funds due from the 1st garnishee.
- 2 Whether a garnishee nisi order should issue against the 1st garnishee for sums sufficient to satisfy the decretal sum.
- 3 Whether the existence of an appeal and stay of execution affects the applicant's right to proceed with garnishee proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had represented the respondent in arbitration, the bill of costs had been taxed, and a certificate of taxation issued. There was no dispute that the 1st garnishee was indebted to the respondent in a sum sufficient to satisfy the decretal amount. The respondent's opposition, based on the existence of an appeal and a stay of execution, was not substantiated by evidence of an operative stay order that would bar the garnishee proceedings. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to proceed with execution by attachment of the respondent's funds held by the 1st garnishee, and granted the orders sought in the application.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave granted to the applicant to proceed with execution of the decree by attachment of the respondent's funds due from the 1st garnishee.
- A garnishee nisi order is issued for all sums due and owing from the 1st garnishee to the respondent sufficient to satisfy the decretal sum of Kshs. 1,965,983 plus interest at court rates from 13th July, 2017.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL MISC. APPL. NO. 519 OF 2016
HALAKE RAMBO MUTHOGA & MUIRURI ADVOCATE..DECREE HOLDER/APPLICANT
VERSUS
GREENSTAR SYSTEMS LIMITED................................JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT
AND
KENYATTA INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION CENTRE..............................1ST GARNISHEE
COOPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LTD...........................................................2ND GARNISHEE
EQUITY BANK OF KENYA LTD...........................................................................3rd GARNISHEE
RULING
1. The application dated 8th February, 2018 seeks orders that:
“1. Spent.
2. That the honourable court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant to proceed with execution of the decree by attachment of the Judgment Debtor/Respondent’s funds due from the 1st Garnishee.
3. That this honourable court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Nisi Order herein and that all sums due and owing from the 1st Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor/Respondent as shall be sufficient to satisfy the Applicant’s decretal sum of Kshs.1,965,983/= which sum continues to accrue interest at court rates from 13th July, 2017 be garnished.
4. That the1st Garnishee do appear before this honourable court on an appointed date and time to show cause why they should not pay to the Applicant/Decree Holder the aforementioned decretal sum.
5. That the said sum of money should be remitted into the Applicant/Judgment Holder’s bank account particulars whereof are given hereunder.
Account Name: Halake Rambo Muthoga & Muiruri Advocates
Account No: 0170264452389
Swift Code: EQBLKENA
Bank: Equity Bank
Bank Code: 68
Branch Code: 017
6. That costs of this application be provided for.
2. It is stated in the grounds and the affidavit in support of the application that the Respondent who was represented by the Applicant in Arbitration proceedings has declined to pay the Applicant’s legal fees. That the costs have been taxed and a certificate of taxation issued for the sum of Ksh.1,965,983/= against the Respondent. That the Applicant then proceeded to institute garnishee proceedings and is aware that the 1st garnishee is indebted to the Respondent in the sum of ksh.47,419. 029. 86 pursuant to the award in the Arbitration proceedings between the Respondent and the 1st Garnishee. That the Arbitration award made on 17th March, 2017 was recognized by the court as binding and leave was granted for the enforcement of the same.
3. The application is opposed. It is stated in the replying affidavit that the Respondent has appealed against the judgment of the High Court that dismissed it’s application to set aside the Arbitration award in HC. Misc. Appl. 278 of 2017 and that temporary orders of stay of execution are inforce therein.
4. The Applicant filed a further affidavit in response to the contents of the replying affidavit. It is averred that with the dismissal of the Respondent’s application in HC Misc. Appl. 278/2017, the Applicant was at liberty to move the court.
5. On 3rd October, 2018 when the application proceeded to hearing the Respondent was not present though served. I have considered the application, the response to the same and the submissions made by counsel for the Applicant.
6. It is not in dispute that the Applicant represented the Respondent in the arbitration proceedings. It is also not in dispute that the Bill of costs has already been taxed. There is no evidence to contest that the 1st Garnishee is indebted to the Respondent. Consequently, I allow the application as prayed.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi this 4th day of Dec., 2018
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE