[2023] KECPT 802 (KLR)

[2023] KECPT 802 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the applicants were not parties to CTC 55 of 2021, the matter in which the freezing orders over the respondent's bank accounts were issued. The freezing orders were made to protect the interests of the 105 claimants in that case, not the present applicants. The applicants' attempt to unfreeze...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KECPT 802 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Weri Kirui; Applicant: Mary Wairimu Weru; Respondent: Urithi Housing Co-operative
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Tribunal Case 154 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Unfreeze Bank Accounts
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
BM Kimemia, J. Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Judgments, Freezing Orders, Bank Account Garnishee, Joinder of Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Enforcement of Judgments Freezing Orders Bank Account Garnishee Joinder of Parties

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Weri Kirui

Applicant

Mary Wairimu Weru

Applicant

Urithi Housing Co-operative

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Unfreeze Bank Accounts

  1. 1 Whether the applicants, not being parties to CTC 55 of 2021, are entitled to benefit from the freezing orders issued in that matter.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal should unfreeze the respondent's bank accounts to allow the applicants to execute their judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' delay in filing the application affects their entitlement to the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the applicants were not parties to CTC 55 of 2021, the matter in which the freezing orders over the respondent's bank accounts were issued. The freezing orders were made to protect the interests of the 105 claimants in that case, not the present applicants. The applicants' attempt to unfreeze the accounts and attach the funds for their own benefit amounted to seeking to ride on orders that were not made for them and in proceedings to which they were strangers. The Tribunal held that the applicants must pursue execution of their judgment through proper channels and not by seeking to benefit from orders in unrelated proceedings. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 7th July 2022 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.