https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11076

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AT NAIROBI** **CIVIL SUIT NO. E2957 OF 2022** **ANGELA WAMBUI HIUHI...........................DECREE HOLDER/APPLICANT** **-VERSUS-** **OKOLEA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED..........................JUDGMENT DEBTOR** **SAFARICOM PLC.............................................................1ST GARNISHEE** **EQUITY BANK PLC.........................................................2ND GARNISHEE** **JUDGMENT** **Introduction** This Judgment concerns two Notices of Motion dated 19th March 2026 and 25th March 2026 brought by the Decree Holder pursuant to the provisions of Order 23 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 38 of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the law. Through the said Applications, the Decree Holder seeks garnishee orders against the 1st and 2nd Garnishees for the attachment of monies allegedly due and owing to the Judgment Debtor in partial satisfaction of an unsatisfied decree issued by this Court. The applications arise from a Judgment entered in favour of the Applicant against the Judgment Debtor on 29th May 2024. Following taxation of costs and extraction of the decree, the total decretal amount due stood at **Kshs.2,037,818/=**, exclusive of accruing interest and execution costs. Despite demand and service of the decree, the Judgment Debtor failed, neglected and/or refused to satisfy the decree, thereby prompting the Applicant to invoke the garnishee procedure provided under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Garnishee proceedings constitute one of the recognized modes of execution available to a successful litigant after obtaining judgment. They are intended to enable a decree holder to realize the fruits of a judgment by attaching debts due or accruing due from a third party to the Judgment Debtor. The procedure does not create a new liability against the garnishee; rather, it diverts an existing debt from the judgment debtor to the decree holder pursuant to an order of the court. The Superior Courts have consistently held that execution is an integral component of the administration of justice. A judgment which cannot be enforced is of little practical value. As was observed in **Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd -Vs- Osebe [1982] KLR,** the law on execution exists to ensure that a successful litigant is not deprived of the fruits of his or her judgment merely because the judgment debtor is unwilling to honour the decree voluntarily. The present proceedings therefore call upon the Court to determine whether the Applicant has established the legal requirements for the issuance of Garnishee Orders Absolute against the respective Garnishees. **Background** The record shows that following entry of judgment and extraction of the decree, the Applicant undertook efforts to secure voluntary payment of the decretal amount. Those efforts proved unsuccessful. Consequently, the Applicant filed the first Notice of Motion dated 19th March 2026 seeking, inter alia, Garnishee Orders Nisi directed against Safaricom PLC, Equity Bank PLC and Commercial Bank of Africa Limited on the basis that the said institutions held monies belonging to the Judgment Debtor. Before the hearing of the first application, the Applicant filed a second Notice of Motion dated 25th March 2026. In that application, the Applicant sought interim preservation orders by way of Garnishee Orders Nisi pending the inter partes hearing of both applications. The Applicant contended that unless the debts in the hands of the Garnishees were immediately attached and preserved, the Judgment Debtor could withdraw or transfer the funds, thereby rendering the execution proceedings nugatory. Upon considering the material placed before it, the Court issued Garnishee Orders Nisi and directed that the two applications be heard together. The Court further directed the Garnishees to disclose whether they were indebted to the Judgment Debtor and, if so, the nature and extent of such indebtedness. The 1st and 2nd Garnishees thereafter entered appearance and filed affidavits responding to the applications. The Applicant subsequently filed written submissions, as did the 2nd Garnishee. During the pendency of the proceedings, counsel for the Applicant informed the Court that the application against the 3rd Garnishee would not be pursued, whereupon the Court discharged the 3rd Garnishee from the proceedings. The matter thereafter proceeded by way of written submissions. **The Applicant's Case** The Applicant relied on the affidavits sworn by Mr. Ibrahim Mwalagho, learned counsel for the Decree Holder. Counsel deposed that judgment had been entered in favour of the Applicant and against the Judgment Debtor on 29th May 2024. A decree was subsequently extracted on 5th December 2024. Despite service of the decree upon the Judgment Debtor through electronic mail on 26th February 2026 together with several demands for payment, the decretal amount remained wholly unsatisfied. It was further deposed that investigations undertaken by the Applicant revealed that the Judgment Debtor conducted substantial business through electronic and banking platforms. In particular, the Applicant asserted that the Judgment Debtor operated Paybill Number 245316 together with USSD Code \*842#, both hosted by the 1st Garnishee, Safaricom PLC. The Applicant also averred that the Judgment Debtor maintained accounts with Equity Bank PLC and Commercial Bank of Africa Limited. Counsel expressed apprehension that unless Garnishee Orders Nisi were issued immediately, the Judgment Debtor would transfer or withdraw the monies standing to its credit, thereby frustrating execution of the decree. It was on that basis that the Applicant sought orders attaching all debts due or accruing due from the Garnishees to the Judgment Debtor. The Applicant maintained throughout the proceedings that the Judgment Debtor had deliberately failed to honour the decree and that garnishee proceedings represented the only practical means through which the fruits of the judgment could be realized. **The 1st Garnishee's Case** The 1st Garnishee, Safaricom PLC, opposed the application only to the extent of clarifying the amount actually held on behalf of the Judgment Debtor. It relied upon a Replying Affidavit sworn by **Stella Mutindi Mutua**, a Senior Merchant Officer in charge of M-Pesa Enterprise Channels. The deponent confirmed that Paybill Number 245316 belonged to the Judgment Debtor. She further confirmed that immediately upon being served with the Garnishee Order Nisi, the 1st Garnishee complied with the order by freezing the account and generating an official statement showing the available balance. According to the statement produced before Court, the balance standing to the credit of the Judgment Debtor as at the date of service of the Garnishee Order Nisi was **Kshs.141,627.25**. The 1st Garnishee expressly informed the Court that it had no objection to releasing the available funds upon issuance of a Garnishee Order Absolute.It nevertheless observed that the available balance was substantially below the decretal sum and therefore could only constitute partial satisfaction of the decree. The 1st Garnishee further sought costs of the garnishee proceedings before being discharged. **The 2nd Garnishee's Case** The 2nd Garnishee, Equity Bank PLC, opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by **Patrick Wanjere**, Relationship Manager. The bank initially contended that the applications were defective because the Applicant had failed to identify any specific account maintained by the Judgment Debtor. It argued that a garnishee order ought not to issue merely on speculation that a judgment debtor may hold an account with a bank. According to the bank, the burden lay upon the decree holder to identify the debt sought to be attached before the evidential burden could shift to the garnishee. Subsequently, following directions of the Court, the 2nd Garnishee filed a Further Affidavit disclosing that the Judgment Debtor indeed maintained two accounts with the bank, namely a Kenya Shilling Account and a United States Dollar Account. Certified statements annexed to the Further Affidavit disclosed that the Kenya Shilling Account had a balance of **Kshs.8.71**, while the United States Dollar Account held **USD 13.34** as at the date of service of the Garnishee Order Nisi. The bank maintained that those balances constituted the entirety of the monies held on behalf of the Judgment Debtor and submitted that no attachable debt capable of satisfying the decree existed. It therefore prayed that the Garnishee Order Nisi be discharged with costs. **The Applicant's Submissions** The Applicant submitted that the Applications satisfy the legal requirements stipulated under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the commencement of garnishee proceedings. Counsel argued that the Applicant had obtained a valid judgment and decree against the Judgment Debtor, that the decree remained wholly unsatisfied and that there existed sufficient material before the Court demonstrating that the Garnishees held monies belonging to the Judgment Debtor. Counsel submitted that once a Garnishee Order Nisi is issued and served upon a garnishee, the debt owing to the judgment debtor is immediately attached and preserved pending the determination of the proceedings. It was argued that the legal consequence of service is that the garnishee becomes prohibited from releasing or otherwise dealing with the attached funds until the Court determines whether the order should be made absolute or discharged. The Applicant further submitted that the 1st Garnishee had expressly admitted holding funds belonging to the Judgment Debtor amounting to Kshs.141,627.25 and had indicated its willingness to release those funds upon issuance of a Garnishee Order Absolute. Counsel therefore argued that there was no legal or factual dispute regarding the liability of the 1st Garnishee. With regard to the 2nd Garnishee, the Applicant submitted that the bank's objection was purely technical. Counsel argued that a decree holder cannot reasonably be expected to know confidential banking information, including account numbers, maintained by a judgment debtor. According to the Applicant, once a Garnishee Order Nisi is served upon a bank, it becomes the duty of the bank, being the custodian of its customer's accounts, to ascertain whether it holds funds belonging to the judgment debtor and to disclose the true position to the Court. Counsel further submitted that the subsequent disclosure by the 2nd Garnishee confirming the existence of two accounts in the name of the Judgment Debtor demonstrated that the preliminary objection lacked merit. It was argued that had the Court accepted the bank's position, the purpose of garnishee proceedings would have been defeated since banking information is ordinarily inaccessible to decree holders. The Applicant relied on **Safaricom Ltd -Vs-King'oo & Another**, where the Court discussed the legal effect of a Garnishee Order Nisi and observed that service of such an order immediately freezes the debt in the hands of the garnishee pending determination of the proceedings. Reliance was also placed upon Order 23 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empowers the Court to issue a Garnishee Order Absolute where the garnishee does not dispute the debt due or claimed to be due. Counsel therefore urged the Court to make the Garnishee Orders Nisi absolute and to direct the Garnishees to satisfy the decree to the extent of the funds held on behalf of the Judgment Debtor. **The 2nd Garnishee's Submissions** The 2nd Garnishee submitted that garnishee proceedings are special execution proceedings which may only be invoked where a decree holder establishes the existence of a debt actually due or accruing due from the garnishee to the judgment debtor. Counsel submitted that the Court ought not to permit fishing expeditions against financial institutions based upon mere suspicion that a Judgment Debtor may maintain an account with a bank. The bank argued that the legal burden rests upon the decree holder to establish the existence of attachable funds before the evidential burden shifts to the garnishee. It was submitted that the Applicant had not discharged that burden because the applications failed to identify any specific account allegedly maintained by the Judgment Debtor. The 2nd Garnishee relied on **James G. K. Njoroge t/a Baraka Tools & Hardware v APA Insurance Co. Ltd & 3 Others [2018] eKLR**, where the High Court emphasized that garnishee proceedings are intended to attach an existing debt and not to investigate uncertain or speculative liabilities. Reliance was also placed upon **James G. K. Njoroge v Kenya Cement Marketing Ltd [2009] eKLR**, **Ngawa Njigi Kibet Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2020] eKLR**, and **Lesinko Njoroge & Gathogo Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co-operative Bank Ltd [2020] eKLR**, for the proposition that a Garnishee Order Absolute can only issue where the debt sought to be attached is actually due or accruing due. Without prejudice to its legal objection, the bank submitted that it had nevertheless complied with the Court's directions by conducting investigations and producing certified statements for all accounts held by the Judgment Debtor. Those statements revealed balances of Kshs.8.71 and USD 13.34 respectively. Counsel submitted that those statements constituted conclusive evidence that no attachable debt existed capable of satisfying the decree. The Court was therefore urged to discharge the Garnishee Order Nisi and dismiss the application against the 2nd Garnishee with costs. **Analysis and Issues for Determination** Having carefully considered the two Notices of Motion dated 19th March 2026 and 25th March 2026, the affidavits filed by the respective parties, the documentary evidence annexed thereto, the written submissions of counsel, the authorities cited and the applicable law, I am of the considered view that the following issues arise for determination: 1. Whether the Applicant properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 2. What are the legal principles governing garnishee proceedings and the issuance of Garnishee Orders Nisi and Absolute? 3. Whether the failure by the Applicant to identify the specific account numbers maintained by the Judgment Debtor rendered the garnishee proceedings incompetent. 4. Whether the 1st Garnishee is indebted to the Judgment Debtor in an attachable amount. 5. Whether the 2nd Garnishee holds attachable funds belonging to the Judgment Debtor. 6. What orders ought to issue as to costs. **(i) Whether the Applicant properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court** The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain garnishee proceedings is derived principally from **Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act** and **Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules**. Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a decree may, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, be executed by attachment and sale of property, attachment of debts, appointment of a receiver, arrest and detention where permissible, or by any other lawful mode of execution. Order 23 specifically provides the procedure through which debts owing by third parties to a judgment debtor may be attached in satisfaction of a decree. Order 23 Rule 1(1) provides:**” A court may, upon the ex parte Application of a decree-holder... order that all debts... owing from a third person called the garnishee to the judgment debtor shall be attached to answer the decree together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings."** The jurisdiction exercised under Order 23 is therefore a statutory jurisdiction intended to facilitate the enforcement of judgments. It exists to ensure that a successful litigant is not left holding a barren decree incapable of realization. The philosophy underlying execution proceedings was succinctly explained by the Court of Appeal in **Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd -Vs- Osebe [1982] KLR**, where the Court observed that the purpose of execution is to ensure that successful litigants enjoy the fruits of their judgments. Courts should therefore lean in favour of lawful execution unless restrained by statute or compelling legal principle. Similarly, in **Choice Investments Ltd -Vs-Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd, Garnishee) [1981] 1 QB 149**, the English Court of Appeal explained that garnishee proceedings involve two distinct stages. The first stage culminates in the issuance of a Garnishee Order Nisi attaching the debt in the hands of the garnishee. The second stage follows an inter partes hearing at which the Court determines whether the order should be made absolute or discharged after hearing the garnishee and any interested parties. Kenyan courts have consistently adopted that exposition of the law. The rationale is straightforward. Before a Garnishee Order Absolute can issue, the garnishee must be afforded an opportunity to dispute liability, demonstrate that no debt exists, or disclose the extent of any indebtedness. The Applicant has placed before the Court a decree issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no dispute that the decree remains unsatisfied. Equally undisputed is the fact that the Judgment Debtor has neither settled the decretal amount nor challenged the validity of the decree. In those circumstances, I find that the Applicant was perfectly entitled to invoke the garnishee procedure provided under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applications are therefore competently before this Court. **(ii) The legal principles governing garnishee proceedings** Garnishee proceedings are not ordinary civil proceedings. They constitute a specialized mode of execution designed to intercept debts owing to a Judgment Debtor before those monies reach the Judgment Debtor. The legal relationship in garnishee proceedings involves three parties: 1. The Decree Holder; 2. The Judgment Debtor; and 3. The Garnishee, who is a third party indebted to the Judgment Debtor. The garnishee is not sued because of any wrongdoing. Rather, the garnishee becomes involved solely because he owes or holds money belonging to the judgment debtor. The Court in **James G. K. Njoroge t/a Baraka Tools & Hardware -Vs- APA Insurance Co. Ltd & 3 Others [2018] eKLR** observed that garnishee proceedings presuppose the existence of an actual debt due or accruing due from the garnishee to the judgment debtor. The proceedings cannot be used to create liabilities where none exist, nor can they be employed to investigate speculative claims. Likewise, in **Ngawa Njigi Kibet Advocates -Vs- Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2020] eKLR**, the Court emphasized that only debts which are presently payable or accruing due are capable of attachment under Order 23. From these authorities, the legal prerequisites for a Garnishee Order Absolute may be summarized as follows: 1. There must exist a valid and enforceable decree; 2. The decree must remain unsatisfied wholly or in part; 3. There must exist a debt owing or accruing due from the garnishee to the judgment debtor; 4. The debt must be identifiable and legally attachable; and 5. The Garnishee must either admit the debt or fail to demonstrate sufficient reason why the order should not be made absolute. **(iii) Whether the failure by the Applicant to specify the Judgment Debtor's account numbers rendered the garnishee proceedings incompetent** The principal objection advanced by the 2nd Garnishee was that the Applicant did not identify the Judgment Debtor's specific account numbers and that the omission rendered the applications fatally defective. The starting point is the wording of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Rule authorizes the Court to attach **"debts owing from a third person to the Judgment Debtor."** It does not require a Decree Holder to identify the account number through which such debt is held. The omission is deliberate and practical. Banking relationships are confidential. Information regarding bank account numbers, account balances and account operations is ordinarily known only to the customer and the bank. A decree holder, being a stranger to that contractual relationship, has no lawful means of obtaining such confidential information unless voluntarily disclosed or produced pursuant to an order of the Court. If courts were to insist that a decree holder must first know and plead the exact account number before invoking Order 23, garnishee proceedings against banks would become virtually impossible. Such an interpretation would defeat the purpose for which Order 23 was enacted. The Court is enjoined, under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Although Article 159 does not excuse non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the law, it equally prohibits courts from elevating procedural objections above substantive justice where the law itself does not impose such requirements. In **James G. K. Njoroge t/a Baraka Tools & Hardware -Vs- APA Insurance Co. Ltd & 3 Others [2018] eKLR**, the Court observed that the burden resting upon a decree holder is to demonstrate the existence of an attachable debt. Once sufficient material is placed before the Court to justify issuance of a Garnishee Order Nisi, the evidential burden shifts to the garnishee, who is uniquely positioned to confirm or deny the existence of the debt. That principle accords withSection 112 of the Evidence Act, whichprovides that where any fact is especially within the knowledge of a party, the burden of proving that fact lies upon that party. Whether the Judgment Debtor maintained accounts with Equity Bank PLC was a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the bank. It could not reasonably have been expected that the Applicant would possess confidential banking records belonging to the Judgment Debtor. Indeed, the subsequent conduct of the 2nd Garnishee illustrates why the objection cannot be sustained. After initially insisting that no account particulars had been supplied, the bank ultimately disclosed that the Judgment Debtor maintained two accounts with it and furnished certified statements in respect thereof. That disclosure effectively answered the very question the Court required to determine. It also demonstrated that the Applicant's belief that the Judgment Debtor banked with the 2nd Garnishee was well founded. In my considered view, the purpose of a Garnishee Order Nisi is precisely to require the garnishee to disclose whether any debt exists. If the decree holder were already required to know all the confidential banking information beforehand, the first stage of garnishee proceedings would become redundant. I therefore hold that failure by the Applicant to specify the Judgment Debtor's account numbers did not render the applications incompetent. The objection raised by the 2nd Garnishee fails. **(iv) Whether the 1st Garnishee is indebted to the Judgment Debtor in an attachable amount** The evidence relating to the 1st Garnishee is largely uncontested. The 1st Garnishee candidly admitted that Paybill Number 245316 belonged to the Judgment Debtor. It further admitted that upon service of the Garnishee Order Nisi it immediately froze the account and generated an official statement confirming that the account held **Kshs.141,627.25**. The authenticity of those records has not been challenged. More importantly, the 1st Garnishee expressly informed the Court that it had no objection to releasing the said amount upon issuance of a Garnishee Order Absolute. The legal consequence of that admission is governed by **Order 23 Rule 4**, which provides that where the garnishee does not dispute the debt due or claimed to be due from him to the judgment debtor, the Court may order execution against the garnishee for the amount admitted to be due. The rationale is self-evident. Once the existence of the debt has been admitted, there remains no factual controversy requiring adjudication. The Court's role is merely to determine whether the debt is legally attachable. The funds held by the 1st Garnishee represent monies standing to the credit of the Judgment Debtor in the ordinary course of its business. Those funds constitute a debt owed by the 1st Garnishee to its customer and are therefore capable of attachment under Order 23. Although the admitted balance falls substantially short of the decretal amount, garnishee proceedings attach only the debt actually existing in the garnishee's hands. They do not authorize the Court to compel payment beyond what is due. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant has established entitlement to a Garnishee Order Absolute against the 1st Garnishee to the extent of **Kshs.141,627.25**. That payment shall constitute partial satisfaction of the decree, without prejudice to the Applicant's right to pursue the balance through any lawful mode of execution. **(v) Whether the 2nd Garnishee holds attachable funds belonging to the Judgment Debtor** The position of the 2nd Garnishee differs materially from that of the 1st Garnishee. Following the Court's directions, the bank produced certified statements confirming that the Judgment Debtor maintained both a Kenya Shilling Account and a United States Dollar Account. The statements disclosed balances of: * **Kshs.8.71**; and * **USD 13.34**. The Applicant did not dispute either the authenticity or the accuracy of those statements. There is equally no evidence before this Court suggesting that additional funds existed in either account on the date when the Garnishee Order Nisi was served. The Court is therefore obliged to determine the application on the evidence presented. In **James G. K. Njoroge v Kenya Cement Marketing Ltd [2009] eKLR**, the High Court observed that a garnishee order cannot create a debt where none exists. It merely diverts payment of an existing debt from the judgment debtor to the decree holder. Similarly, in **Ngawa Njigi Kibet Advocates v Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd [2020] eKLR**, the Court emphasized that attachment is limited strictly to debts actually due or accruing due. Applying those principles, the Court cannot compel the 2nd Garnishee to satisfy the decree beyond the indebtedness actually established. The certified statements demonstrate that no meaningful attachable funds existed in the custody of the bank. While the Court appreciates the Applicant's frustration in attempting to realize the fruits of the judgment, judicial sympathy cannot replace legal proof. The Court cannot speculate that additional funds exist where none have been shown. Consequently, I find that no sufficient basis has been established for making the Garnishee Order Nisi absolute against the 2nd Garnishee. The order issued against Equity Bank PLC must therefore be discharged. **(vi) Costs** The issue of costs falls for determination under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that costs shall follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise. The discretion conferred upon the Court is a judicial discretion which must be exercised on sound legal principles. The Applicant has substantially succeeded against the 1st Garnishee. The Applicant has, however, not succeeded in obtaining substantive relief against the 2nd Garnishee. Ordinarily, the unsuccessful party would bear the successful party's costs. Nevertheless, I do not consider this to be an ordinary case. The 2nd Garnishee initially opposed the Application principally on the basis that no account numbers had been supplied. Subsequently, however, it disclosed that the Judgment Debtor indeed maintained accounts with it. Although I have accepted the bank's evidence that the balances were negligible, the initial objection did not materially assist the just and expeditious determination of the proceedings. A prompt disclosure of the accounts and their balances at the earliest opportunity would likely have narrowed the dispute considerably. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case for departing from the general rule. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs in respect of the proceedings involving the 2nd Garnishee. The costs attributable to the successful garnishee proceedings against the 1st Garnishee shall be recoverable from the Judgment Debtor pursuant to **Order 23 Rule 10** of the Civil Procedure Rules. **Conclusion and Orders** Having carefully considered the two Notices of Motion dated 19th March 2026 and 25th March 2026, the affidavits filed by all parties, the documentary evidence produced, the Written Submissions of learned counsel, the applicable statutory provisions and the authorities cited, I arrive at the following conclusions. First, the Applicant properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There exists a valid and unsatisfied decree issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, thereby entitling the Applicant to pursue execution by way of garnishee proceedings. Secondly, I find that the Applicant was not required to identify the Judgment Debtor's confidential bank account numbers before commencing garnishee proceedings. Such information lies peculiarly within the knowledge of the respective financial institutions and is ordinarily incapable of access by third parties. To hold otherwise would undermine the efficacy of garnishee proceedings as a mode of execution. Thirdly, I find that the 1st Garnishee admitted indebtedness to the Judgment Debtor in the sum of **Kshs.141,627.25** and expressly indicated its willingness to release those funds. There exists no legal impediment to making the Garnishee Order Nisi absolute in respect of that amount. Fourthly, although the 2nd Garnishee ultimately disclosed the existence of accounts maintained by the Judgment Debtor, the certified statements establish that the balances therein were limited to **Kshs.8.71** and **USD 13.34**. There is no evidence of any further attachable debt. The Court cannot compel payment of monies that do not exist or speculate as to undisclosed funds. Accordingly, the Applicant succeeds only against the 1st Garnishee. **Conclusion & final Orders** Accordingly, I make the following orders with regard to The Notices of Motion dated 19th March 2026 and 25th March 2026: 1. ***The Garnishee Order Nisi issued against the 1st Garnishee, Safaricom PLC, is hereby made absolute.*** 2. ***The 1st Garnishee shall, within seven (7) days of service of this Judgment, pay to the Applicant the sum of Kenya Shillings One Hundred and Forty-One Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty-Seven and Twenty-Five Cents (Kshs.141,627.25) in partial satisfaction of the decree issued herein.*** 3. ***The payment made pursuant to Order (3) above shall constitute partial satisfaction only of the decretal sum, and the Applicant shall remain at liberty to pursue execution for the outstanding balance in accordance with the law.*** 4. ***The Garnishee Order Nisi issued against the 2nd Garnishee, Equity Bank PLC, is hereby discharged.*** 5. ***The 3rd Garnishee, having previously been discharged from these proceedings, no further orders shall issue in respect thereof.*** 6. ***The costs relating to the successful garnishee proceedings against the 1st Garnishee shall be recoverable from the Judgment Debtor in accordance with Order 23 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.*** 7. ***Each party shall bear its own costs in respect of the proceedings involving the 2nd Garnishee.*** It is so ordered. 30 Days Right of Appeal. **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **L.A. MUMASSABBA** **PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE** **15.7.2026** **JUDGEMENT DATED, READ, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS PLATFORM THIS 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026** **In the presence of:** Mr.Mwalagho for the Plaintiff/Applicant M/s Waititu for the 2nd Garnishee Court Assistant: Phoebe.