[2019] KEHC 8145 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 8145 (KLR)

The court held that once the warrants of attachment were set aside, the judgment debtor (applicant) could not be held liable for storage charges arising from the attachment. The auctioneer was found to have complied with the court's release orders, and any dispute regarding storage charges was to be resolved between...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 8145 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hatari Security Company Ltd; Respondent: Hamisi Charo; Respondent: Ndutumi Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 283 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Supervisory Jurisdiction Regarding Release of Attached Motor Vehicle and Liability for Storage Charges
Outcome
application dismissed; motor vehicle to be released to applicant; auctioneer discharged from contempt; no order as to costs; file closed
Judges
CA Otieno
Legal Topics
Execution of Decrees, Attachment of Property, Storage Charges Liability
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Execution of Decrees Attachment of Property Storage Charges Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hatari Security Company Ltd

Applicant

Hamisi Charo

Respondent

Ndutumi Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Supervisory Jurisdiction Regarding Release of Attached Motor Vehicle and Liability for Storage Charges

  1. 1 Whether the judgment debtor is liable for storage charges after warrants of attachment have been set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the auctioneer complied with court orders for release of the attached motor vehicle.
  3. 3 Who is responsible for payment of storage charges incurred after the setting aside of the warrants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once the warrants of attachment were set aside, the judgment debtor (applicant) could not be held liable for storage charges arising from the attachment. The auctioneer was found to have complied with the court's release orders, and any dispute regarding storage charges was to be resolved between the decree-holder and the yard owner, not the applicant. The auctioneer was discharged from contempt allegations, and the application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The matter was brought to a close, and the lower court file was to be remitted for further proceedings as necessary.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; motor vehicle to be released to applicant; auctioneer discharged from contempt; no order as to costs; file closed

Orders

  • The motor vehicle be released to the applicant forthwith.
  • Any costs of storage to be pursued from the decree-holder and paid by him upon agreement or taxation by the trial court.