[1995] KEHC 110 (KLR)
The court found that the garnishee order nisi was served on the garnishee only five days before the hearing, contrary to the mandatory requirement of at least seven days' notice under Order 22 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. This procedural defect deprived the garnishee of sufficient opportunity to appear...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1995] KEHC 110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kabansora Limited; Respondent: Ahmed Bahannan
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 3619 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Stay and Set Aside Garnishee Order Absolute
- Outcome
- application allowed; garnishee order absolute stayed and set aside; costs to garnishee
- Legal Topics
- Garnishee Proceedings, Service of Process, Stay of Execution, Setting Aside Orders
- 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
Kabansora Limited
Applicant
Ahmed Bahannan
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Stay and Set Aside Garnishee Order Absolute
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the garnishee order nisi was properly served in compliance with Order 22 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the garnishee was given sufficient notice to appear and show cause as required by law.
- 3 Whether the garnishee order absolute should be stayed and set aside due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the garnishee order nisi was served on the garnishee only five days before the hearing, contrary to the mandatory requirement of at least seven days' notice under Order 22 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. This procedural defect deprived the garnishee of sufficient opportunity to appear and contest the order. The court further noted that the garnishee had attempted to comply with the requirement to inform the court of any debt due, but the timing of service made this compliance ineffective. As the decree holder did not contradict the garnishee's assertion that no debt was owed, and given the lack of proper notice, the court held that the garnishee was not bound...
Court Disposition
application allowed; garnishee order absolute stayed and set aside; costs to garnishee
Orders
- Execution of the garnishee order absolute is stayed.
- The garnishee order absolute is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NO 3619 OF 1988
KABANSORA LIMITED……...……….APPLICANT
VERSUS
AHMED BAHANNAN………………….RESPONDENT
RULING
The Garnishee applies for stay of execution and setting aside the Garnishee order Nisi of October 15, 1990 served on October 17, 1990 and was for hearing on October 23, 1990. Among matters ordered and notified was the fact that Garnishee do within seven days after the service of the order inform the court what sum is due from him to the judgement debtor. Another requirement of that order nisi on the Garnishee is that the should attend the court on the application by the decree holder on October 23, 1990, and that the Garnishee pays to the decree holder the debt due from the Garnishee to the judgment debtor.
Rule 1 (2) of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules require at least seven days before the day of hearing the Garnishee order nisi shall be served on the Garnishee. According to the affidavit on the Return of Service it is deponed that the Garnishee was served on October 17, 1990 for hearing on October 23, 1990. This is five days not seven days given and does not comply with the rule 1 (2) of the said order.
It is clear that the Garnishee more or less complied with the requirement of the order that it must inform the court what sum was due from it to the judgment debtor. The Garnishee is required to have done this within seven days of service on it of the order of Nisi. The order was served on October 17, 1990 and was for hearing on October, 23, 1990 and seven days within which to inform the court of any debt owing would have been done on October 24, 1990 a day after the hearing and making of garnishee order absolute.
That notification would have served no purpose on that date for no fault of the Garnishee who was not served as provided by Rule 1 (2) of the said order.
Nevertheless attempts were made to inform counsel for the decree holder of the position that no debts owing to the judgment debtor from the Garnishee. This was on November 6, 1990 with a copy to the court. It would also seem from an affidavit in support that the garnishee made some belated attempts to ascertain what happened from the court file but was not lucky.
The application is opposed and submitted that Rule 3 of Order 22 cannot be invoked by the Garnishee who was given appropriate notice to appearand did not appear to show that no debt was due from it to the judgment debtor. As such the garnishee is finally bound by the garnishee order absolute that money owing from it to the judgment debtor.
The decree holder has put in issue the fact that the garnishee had been given appropriate noticeto appear in court on its application to show that it is not owing any money to the judgment debtor. One must of course examine what is meant by Notice under the applicable Rule. I have already referred to Rule 1 (2) of the said Order 22 and found that it has not been complied with as five days instead of seven days were given.
I therefore must hold that the Garnishee was not given sufficient notice to appear in court on October 23, 1990. I must therefore stay execution of the order as prayed and also set it aside. This is more so when the Garnishee swears that no debt is due from it to the judgement debtor and that has not been contradicted by the decree holder. The Garnishee to have the costs of the application against the decree holder.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this March 20, 1995
M.O KEIWUA
JUDGE