Lantech (Africa) Ltd v Geothermal Development Company & 4 others (Miscellaneous Case E776 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 10028 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)

Lantech (Africa) Ltd v Geothermal Development Company & 4 others (Miscellaneous Case E776 of 2020) [2026] KEHC 10028 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10028 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Miscellaneous Case E776 of 2020 F Gikonyo, J July 9, 2026 Between Lantech (Africa) Limited Decree holder and Geothermal Development Company Judgment debtor and Central Bank Of Kenya Limited 1st Garnishee Co-Operative Bank Of Kenya Limited 2nd Garnishee Kcb Bank Kenya Limited 3rd Garnishee Kenya Electricity Generating Company Plc 4th Garnishee Ruling 1.There are two competing motions before the court. The motion dated 9.12.2025 and 17.12.2025 by the decree holder and the judgment debtor respectively. 2.The decree holder seeks that the garnishee order nisi issued on 11.12.2025 is made absolute. 3.On the other hand, the judgment debtor seeks that the subject garnishee order nisi is set aside. Decree holder's garnishee application 4.The application is brought under Order 23 Rules 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10. It is supported by the affidavit sworn by its Chief Executive Officer, Aquinas Wasike on 9.12.2025 and written submissions dated 14.2.2026. 5.It is opposed by the judgment debtor through grounds of opposition dated 16.2.2026. 6.The 2nd garnishee, Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited also opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn by its Company Secretary, Samuel M. Kibugi on 28.1.2026. Judgment Debtor's setting aside application 7.The application is made under sections 1A. 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It is supported by the affidavit sworn by the Company Secretary and Legal Manager, Calvin Nyachoti on 16.12.2025. 8.The decree holder opposed the application through a replying affidavit sworn by Aquinas Wasike on 27.1.2026. Decree holder's case 9.The decree holder's main ground is that there is need to have the judgment debtor's debts due from the garnishees attached to fully satisfy the balance of the decretal sum in the decree issued herein. 10.The decree holder relied on the following cases: -1.Armstrong Engineering Limited; I &M Bank Limited (Garnishee) [2025] KEHC 14599 (KLR)2.Takful Insurance of Africa Ltd (Kenya) v County Government of Garissa & another [2020] KEHC 6264 (KLR) Judgment debtor's case 11.The judgement debtor asserted that there are subsisting orders of stay of execution issued on 15.12.2023 by the Court of Appeal in Civil Applications E454 of 2023 and E460 of 2023, Kenya Electricity Generating Company PLC v Lantech Africa Limited & 4 others. 12.It also contended that the accounts sought to be attached, held at the 1st and 2nd garnishee banks, are in respect of steam receivables. The receivables are incapable of attachment per the ruling of 26.5.2023 by Mabeya J. because they are not a debt due and recoverable. 13.The judgement debtor faulted the decree holder for material non-disclosure and deliberate concealment of those stay orders to obtain the garnishee order nisi. 14.The judgment debtor argued that the decree holder's application is frivolous, vexatious and a gross abuse of the court process. 15.The judgment debtor also highlighted that the accounts sought to be attached in the decree holder's application substantially replicate the same bank accounts in its previous application. 2nd garnishee's response 16.The 2nd garnishee echoed the judgment debtor's case. It added that the substantive appeals sprouting from the two applications preceding the stay orders have since been filed. It also added that the decree holder's application is frivolous and an abuse of the court process. Oral highlights on 16.2.2026 17.Mr. Ahmednasir, SC for the JD contended that the DH’s application dated 9.12.2025 is a replica of the application dated 27.2.2023 and that Mabeya J. issued a ruling dated 20.9.2023 in which he granted all the prayers the DH is seeking. 18.He submitted that on 18.10.2023, the Court of Appeal issued an interim order staying the order by Mabeya J. as well as these proceedings, confirmed on 15.12.2023. He also submitted that recently, on 28.11.2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal filed by the JD against the decision of Okwany’ J. adopting the arbitral award. 19.Mr. Ahmednasir faulted Mr. Masika for misrepresenting to the court that the appeal has been determined yet these proceedings have been stayed because of two appeals pending before the Court of Appeal. 20.Mr. Wanga for Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd concurred with Mr. Ahmednasir, SC on the pendency of orders stay of execution and further proceedings before this court. He confirmed that subsequent appeals have been filed before the Court of Appeal but clarified that the JD’s appeal does not concern the bank. He submitted that if the proceedings before this court continue, the court will be embarrassed as it will contravene the orders of the Court of Appeal. 21.Mr. Ohaga SC stated that accusations made against Mr. Masika are unfounded and grossly unfair. He contended that this matter can only be unraveled by hearing the competing applications. 22.He briefly recounted the background that: -1.The DH was the successful party in the arbitral proceedings against the JD in 2019.2.The award was enforced after section 35, and 36 applications were disposed of.3.The JD filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal which was dismissed. 23.Mr. Ohaga SC submitted that no stay of execution can be available to the JD as the substantive appeal has been dismissed. He explained that, while the appeal was pending, initial garnishee proceedings were undertaken and that execution was against the JD not the garnishee. 24.He confirmed that the garnishee proceedings were allowed by Mabeya J. and that his order was challenged by KENGEN. He contended that the interim stay of proceedings was not sustained in the final ruling. 25.Mr. Ohaga, SC therefore submitted that the garnishee proceedings now before this court should proceed as the present applications do not involve the garnishees who are in the Court of Appeal or accounts subject to that appeal. 26.He further pointed out that the bank accounts that are the subject of the present garnishee proceedings are distinct from those that were the subject of the earlier garnishee proceedings, which were subsequently stayed. 27.He suggested that the JD is hanging on the coat tails of the garnishees to frustrate the DH. He highlighted that there is neither stay of the Court of Appeal’s decision dismissing the JD’s appeal nor leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 28.In response, Mr. Ahmednasir SC maintained that the DH’s application is a duplicate of its earlier one, highlighting that the subject Co-operative and KCB bank accounts are the same. Analysis and Determination 29.I have considered the applications, the grounds of opposition, the rival affidavits and the submissions. Issue 30.The issue before the court is whether execution and further proceedings herein were stayed. More, specifically whether the garnishee order nisi should be stayed. 31.Ahmednassir, S.C, raised an objection that the two competing applications; the Garnishee application by the D/H and the one for setting aside the Garnishee order Nisi; should not be heard. The objection stems from the order by the Court of Appeal staying execution as well as further proceedings herein. He stated that, although the primary appeal by the J/D seeking to set aside the arbitral award was dismissed, the stay order was issued in an appeal against garnishee proceedings and order Nisi issued in execution of the decree herein by the D/H. According to him, those orders subsist until the appeal by the garnishee is determined. The appeal is yet to be determined. 32.Ohaga, S.C was of a different opinion; that stay of execution was issued in respect of one Garnishee, KENGEN and is limited to the said garnishee. According to him, there was no order of stay of proceedings issued by the Court of Appeal. He stated that garnishee proceedings are in execution of a decree against the J/D and not against the Garnishee. His view was that there can never be an execution against the garnishee. 33.The latter argument raises an important point. Garnishee proceedings are in execution of a decree against the J/D and not in execution against the garnishee. Except, however, ‘if he [Garnishee] does not appear upon the day of hearing named in an order nisi, then the court may order execution against the person and goods of the garnishee to levy the amount due from him, or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree, together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings;’ Order 23 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 34.Having said that, I embark on the task at hand which is not to interpret the Court of Appeal order, but to give it effect. 35.I have read the Court of Appeal’s order of 18.10.2023, to the effect that: -“2…there shall be an interim stay of execution and further proceedings before the High Court until 15th December 2023.” 36.I have read the Court of Appeal’s ruling of 15.12.2023. It was concluded as follows: -“ 39.In the end, it is clear to us now as it was when we issued the interim orders on 18th October, 2023 that both applications have merit and are for allowing. The applications of 29th September, 2023 and 4th October 2023 are allowed. Costs shall be paid by Lantech.” 37.One of the prayers sought in the application dated 29th September, 2023 was: -THAT the Honorable Court be pleased to stay and/or set aside the proceedings of the Superior Court pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal. 38.From my reading of the above, the Court of Appeal did issue an order of stay of execution and proceedings before the High Court. 39.Thus, as stay of proceedings is all encompassing, I am not persuaded by Lantech’s argument that the Court of Appeal merely stayed the garnishee proceedings not execution of the decree. 40.To my mind, if that were the position, the Court of Appeal would have; made it clear; or issued a narrower order; or specifically omitted some of the prayers sought in the applications. 41.Having concluded that there are subsisting orders of stay of execution and proceedings issued by the Court of Appeal, this court is bound by the said orders under the doctrine of precedent. 42.In conclusion, and for the avoidance of doubt, the garnishee order nisi issued on 11.12.2025 is hereby stayed. The matter shall remain as per the order of the Court of Appeal unless otherwise directed or ordered by the Court of Appeal. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026-----------------F. GIKONYO M JUDGEIn the presence of: -Mwangi for Ondieki for Standard BankOhaga/Masika for LantechMs Asli for RespondentMs. Ochola for 2nd GarnisheeMs. Adenyi for Wanga for Coop BankCA- Ivan/Aggrey