https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7383

Javier Georgiadis & Sylvester Law Llp v Lenolkulal t/a Oryx Service Station (Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7383 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7383 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Anti Corruption and Economics Crime Miscellaneous Application E047 of 2024 REA Ougo, J May 26, 2026 Between Javier Georgiadis & Sylvester Law Llp Applicant and Moses Kasaine Lenolkulal t/a Oryx Service Station Client Ruling 1.In a Notice of Motion dated 2nd of April 2026 brought pursuant to Section 1A, 1B 7 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya, Order 22 Rule 6; Order 22 Rule 7; Order 22 Rule 11; Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the applicant seeks the following orders;i.Spentii.Pending the interpartes hearing and determination of this application, an order be and is hereby issued staying the execution of the judgment entered on12th February, 2026 together with the Warrants of Attachment of movable property dated 27th March, 2026 issued to Pavilion Auctioneers against the client/Respondent.iii.That warrant of attachment of movable property dated 27th March 2026 and issued to Pavilion Auctioneers be an are hereby set aside ex-debito justitiae.iv.Costs of this application be provided for. 2.2 2 The application is supported by the affidavit of Moses Kasaine Lenolkulal, the Respondent/Client. He deposes as follows: the matter arose from the taxation of an Advocate-Client Bill of Costs. On 2nd April 2026, the Client/Respondent filed a Notice of Motion dated 2nd April 2026 seeking orders for the Warrants of Attachment of movable property dated 27th March 2026, issued to Pavilion Auctioneers. The key argument in the motion is that the said warrants were issued irregularly and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Order 22 Rule 6 and Order 22 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the following reasons:a.The Decree holder did not serve the Client/Respondent with any Decree of this Honourable Court and also an application for execution of the Decree;b.There is no application for execution filed in this matter by the Decree Holder in the manner required by Order 22 Rule 6 as read together with Order 22 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules;c.The warrants of attachment of movable property dated 27th March 2026, having been issued pronto and without an application for execution being filed in terms of Order 22 Rules 6 & 7, the warrants of Attachment ought to be set aside ex debito justitie; andd.There is no law at all, that permits the issuance of Warrants of Attachment of movable property on the spot (pronto) without an application for execution being filed as required by Order 22 Rules 6 & 7.e.The Client/Respondent enjoys an inviolable right to a fair hearing pursuant to Articles 25(c) and 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 6.It was further deposed that there is an imminent threat of execution. On 1st April, 2026, the Applicant’s agents (Pavilion Auctioneers) descended upon his private residence in Karen in an attempt to enforce the impugned Warrants of Attachment. He protests the irregular, unprocedural and opaque manner in which those warrants were obtained and states that unless the interim orders sought are granted, the application will be rendered nugatory and the client will suffer irreparable loss and damage, as his assets and property will be seized, attached and sold through an irregular process. 4.The application was opposed. The respondent/applicant filed a Replying Affidavit dated 20th April 2026. It is deposed that the client has approached the court with unclean hands and cannot benefit from the court’s discretion. He has disregarded, ignored, belittled and disrespected the authority of the Honourable Court and yet returns to seek the protection of the Court. It’s not true that the said Warrants were issued irregularly. His advocate on record has informed him that all the legal procedures were duly complied with, including service of the Decree upon the client, which was effected on 14th February, 2026 (see GM – 1, a copy of the email service to the client). 5.The application for execution was also filed with the registry when it became clear that the client was not interested in complying with the court decree by making payments, and the Warrants were duly processed (see GM – 2, which is a copy of the application). The client is clearly intent on frustrating the advocate, defying the court, and delaying justice. The underlying fact, which the client has ignored throughout his application, is that there is a valid decree directing him to pay the advocate; it has never been set aside, overturned, or stayed. The prayers sought, therefore, will not resolve the issue in question and would be a complete waste of time if granted. 6.The application was canvassed through oral submissions. The Applicant/Respondent, through his counsel, reiterated the contents of his affidavit, emphasizing that the warrants were issued on 27th March 2026 without an application for execution as provided under orders 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which would indicate the manner in which they will proceed to execute, and therefore, the impugned warrants were issued prematurely. 7.In their oral submissions, the Applicant also reiterated the contents of the Applicant’s affidavit, emphasising that Order 6 of the CPR makes no reference to an application and that Order 7 describes the format of the warrants. They have an email showing that the decree was served on the Respondent and counsel, and this has not been controverted. The CTS will show that on 25.3.2026 they made an application and that thereafter the warrants were issued by the court. On the warrants being issued, there is no provision in the law that supports the said submission. Though the Applicant wants the warrants set aside, there is no proposal for any payment. Analysis And Determination 4.I have considered the rival affidavits, the oral submissions, and the law. Order 22, Rules 6 and 7 state as follows;6.Application for execution [Order 22, rule 6]Where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall apply to the court which passed the decree, or, if the decree has been sent under the provisions hereinbefore contained to another court, then to such court or to the proper officer thereof; and applications under this rule shall be in accordance with Form No. 14 of Appendix A:Provided that, where judgment in default of appearance or defence has been entered against a defendant, no execution by payment, attachment or eviction shall issue unless not less than ten days notice of the entry of judgment has been given to him either at his address for service or served on him personally, and a copy of that notice shall be filed with the first application for execution. 7.Oral and written applications [Order 22, rule 7](1)Where a decree is for the payment of money the court may, on the oral application of the decree-holder at the time of the passing of the decree, order immediate execution thereof by the arrest of the judgment-debtor, prior to the preparation of a warrant, if he is within the precincts of the court.(2)Save as otherwise provided by subrule (1) or by any other enactment or rule, every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed by the applicant or his advocate or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars—(a)the number of the suit;(b)the names of the parties;(c)the date of the decree;(d)whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree;(e)whether any, and, if any, what payment or other adjustment of the matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequent to the decree;(f)whether any, and if any, what previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications, and their results;(g)the amount with interest, if any, due upon the decree, or other relief granted thereby, together with particulars of any cross- decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed;(h)the amount of the costs, if any, awarded;(i)the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; and(j)the mode in which the assistance of the court is required, whether—(i)by the delivery of any property specifically decreed;(ii)by the attachment and sale of any immovable property, or by the sale without attachment or by proclamation and sale immovable property;(iii)by the arrest and detention in prison of any person;(iv)by the appointment of a receiver;(v)otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted may require.(3)The court to which an application is made under subrule (2) may require the applicant to produce a certified copy of the decree. 4.I have reviewed the Court file and the CTS, through which the parties file their pleadings and correspondence. Following the Deputy Registrar’s ruling delivered on 9.10.2025, a letter dated 13.11.2025 from the firm of Shisanya & Company Advocates sought the issuance of the respective certificate of costs for their further action. The Certificate of Costs was issued on the same day. Thereafter, the Advocate/Applicant filed an application dated 14.11.2025 seeking adoption of the certificate of costs and for the court to enter judgment in the sum of Kshs. 3,425,020.59 against the Respondent. The application was heard on 12.2.2026 and allowed as prayed. Thereafter, the Advocate sent an email dated 14.2.2026 with reference to the Attachment and the Decree. In that email, the Advocate indicated that a decree had been issued by the court for settlement within ten (10) days from the date hereof, failure of which would result in execution. The copy of the email attached to the replying Affidavit does not include the said decree. 5.Order 22 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that where the holder of a decree seeks to execute it, he shall apply to the court which passed the decree, or, if the decree has been sent under the provisions hereinbefore contained to another court, to such court or to the proper officer thereof; and applications under this rule shall be in accordance with Form No. 14 of Appendix A. The rule is clear that the party seeking to execute shall apply to the court in accordance with Form No. 14 of Appendix A. The Advocate/Applicant submitted that they had applied for execution. I have perused the court file and the CTS, and there is no such application by the Advocate/Applicant in the prescribed form, nor is there even a letter to the DR indicating that they seek to proceed with execution. The court did not give the applicant an express order to execute. The form attached to the Replying affidavit is a Warrant of Attachment of movable property in execution of a decree for money. Form 14 is titled “Application for Execution of Decree (O. 22, r. 6)”. 6.The Advocate/Application has failed to show that the Applicant applied for execution in accordance with Order 22 Rule 6. I therefore find that an essential step in the execution process has been omitted, and the Applicant cannot be allowed to proceed with execution. Compliance with Order 6 is vital before execution. The Warrants of Attachment of movable property dated 27th March 2026, issued to Pavilion Auctioneers, are hereby set aside. No order as to costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026.R.E.OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Rene -For the Applicant Miss Imali h/b for Mr. Shisanya - For the RespondentAdan C/A