https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3043

Ngoingwa Company Limited v National Land Commission & another (Environment and Land Petition 8 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3043 (KLR) (18 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3043 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Thika Environment and Land Petition 8 of 2019 JA Mogeni, J May 18, 2026 Between Ngoingwa Company Limited Decree holder and National Land Commission Judgment debtor and National Bank of Kenya Hill Plaza Branch Garnishee Ruling 1.I am addressing two Notices of Motion through this Ruling. The first one is dated 2/04/2025 filed by the Applicant and the second one dated 29/04/2025 filed by the Judgment Debtor, National Land Commission. 2.The first application is brought under Order 23 Rule 1 & 2, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all enabling laws. The Applicant seeks from this Court the following:1.Spent.2.That the Honourable Court be pleased to make a Garnishee Order Nisi against National Bank of Kenya Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00, the Garnishee herein, ordering that all monies deposited, lying and being held in deposit by the Garnishee respectively to the credit of National Land Commission, the Judgment Debtor herein, be attached to answer the Certificate of Taxation dated 19th July 2022 for the sum of Kshs. 416,112.40 being the amount in respect of which Judgment was entered in favour of the Applicant herein.3.That an Order Nisi upon the Garnishee do issue and the same be served on the Garnishee forthwith.4.That the Garnishee does appear before this Court on an appointed date and time to show cause why they would not pay the Applicant the sum of Kenya Shillings Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Twelve and Forty Cents (Kshs. 416,112.40) being the decretal sums as per the Certificate of Taxation dated 19th July 2022.5.That upon the inter-parties hearing of the application, the Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Absolute in terms of prayers 2 and 3 as is enough to satisfy the decretal amount of Kshs. 416,112.40 as per the Certificate of Taxation dated 19th July 2022.6.That the decretal sum be paid into the Applicant's Advocates' Bank Account within 24 hours from the date of the issuance of the Garnishee Order Absolute.7.That the costs of this application be borne by the Respondent. 3.The application is based on the grounds on the face of it and supported by the annexed Supporting Affidavit sworn by Daniel Kennedy Mwai of even date. 4.The Applicant depones that the Applicant, as Petitioner in Thika ELC Petition No. 8 of 2019, successfully prosecuted a Petition seeking to quash Gazette Notice No. 1995 issued on 1/03/2019 by the Respondent, and that Judgment was entered in the Applicant's favour on 15/04/2021 with an order as to costs issued on 21/06/2021, a copy of which Judgment and Decree are annexed and marked "DKW 1". The Applicant thereafter filed a party and party Bill of Costs dated 30/07/2021 claiming Kshs. 12,907,822, which upon taxation was reduced to Kshs. 416,112.40, as evidenced by the Certificate of Taxation dated 19/07/2022, annexed and marked "DKW 2". 5.Notwithstanding a demand letter addressed to the Respondent on 18/08/2022, annexed and marked "DKW 3", calling upon it to settle the decretal sum, the Respondent has neither responded to the said demand nor taken any steps towards satisfaction of the taxed costs, leaving the decretal sum of Kshs. 416,112.40 wholly unsatisfied to date. 6.The deponent further depones that the Respondent holds deposits to its credit at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00, and that there exists a real apprehension that unless this Honourable Court intervenes by way of a Garnishee Order, the Respondent may withdraw or transfer those funds so as to defeat the Applicant's claim, thereby rendering the application nugatory. The Applicant accordingly prays that a Garnishee Order Absolute do issue attaching the said funds in full satisfaction of the Certificate of Taxation in the sum of Kshs. 416,112.40. 7.The application is opposed, vide two Replying Affidavits one sworn by the Respondent on 29/04/2025 and another sworn by the Garnishee on 15/05/2025. 8.The Replying Affidavit of the Respondent is sworn by Brian Ikol, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and Director of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution at the National Land Commission, the Respondent and Judgment Debtor herein. He acknowledges the Garnishee proceedings brought by way of application dated 2/04/ 2025 and does not dispute that the Court taxed party and party costs against the Commission in the sum of Kenya Shillings Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Twelve and Forty Cents (Kshs. 416,112.40). 9.He however depones that the Commission has been unable to settle the decretal sum owing to budgetary constraints imposed on all government institutions, the National Treasury having only allocated funds for the day-to-day running of the Commission's affairs, and that the delay in payment has not been intentional. 10.The deponent raises two substantive legal objections to the Garnishee proceedings. First, he depones that the Commission is a Constitutional Commission established under Article 67(1) of the Constitution and operationalised by the National Land Commission Act No. 5 of 2012, and that as an entity comprising part of the National Government, the Garnishee proceedings offend the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 Rule 2(2)(b)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a position he contends was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Five Star Agencies Limited & Another v National Land Commission & 2 Others (Civil Appeal E290 & 328 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2024] KECA 439 (KLR), rendering the proceedings unmaintainable. 11.Secondly, and without prejudice to the foregoing, he depones that Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, is a special compensation account established under Sections 115(2), 111(1) and 111(1A) of the Land Act, used exclusively for receiving monies from acquiring bodies and remitting compensation payments to project-affected persons whose land has been acquired by the Government, and that the funds held therein do not belong to the Commission, but are held in trust for citizens of Kenya, and are therefore not available for attachment. The deponent accordingly prays that the Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 25/04/ 2025 be set aside and the application dismissed with costs to the Respondent. 12.On their part, the Garnishee on 15/05/2025 swore a Replying Affidavit deponed by Chrispus Maithya, Head of Commercial Transactions and Litigation at National Bank of Kenya Limited, the Garnishee herein, who deposes that he is duly authorised to swear the Affidavit on the Bank's behalf. 13.He confirms that he is aware that the Applicant seeks to attach funds amounting to Kshs. 416,112.40 pursuant to the Certificate of Taxation dated 19/07/2022, held in the Respondent's Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 at the Bank's Hill Plaza Branch. He further confirms that the subject account is sufficiently funded to satisfy the order nisi issued by the Court, and that upon service of the Garnishee order nisi on 28/04/2025, the Bank promptly placed a debit freeze on the subject account. 14.Notwithstanding the foregoing, the deponent raises a substantive objection to the attachment, deposing that by virtue of the Bank's engagement with the Respondent, the funds held in the subject account are held in trust for various designated recipients of compensation owing to the special nature of the account, and are therefore not available for satisfaction of any Decree nor for the general use of the Respondent, rendering them in the Bank's view not subject to attachment. 15.The Bank nonetheless states that it is ready and willing to comply with any consequent orders of the Court to the extent of the amounts presently held in the subject account. The Bank further prays that the costs of the application, assessed at Kenya Shillings Thirty Thousand Only (Kshs. 30,000), be borne by the Respondent. 16.The second Application dated 29/04/2025 filed by the Applicant/Judgment Debtor was brought pursuant to Article 159 of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant seeks the following:1.Spent.2.There be a temporary stay of execution against the Orders issued by this Honourable Court on 25/04/2025 and all consequential Orders and/or proceedings arising therefrom pending the hearing and determination of this Application.3.This Honourable Court be pleased to review, set aside and/or vacate the Orders obtained by the Respondent herein on 25/04/ 2025 and all consequential Orders and/or proceedings arising therefrom.4.Any other order that this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant.5.Costs of this Application be provided for. 17.The Application is based on the grounds of the face of it as enumerated and supported by the Affidavit sworn on 29/04/2025 Brian Ikol, Director of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution at the National Land Commission, the Applicant and Judgment Debtor. 18.He deposes and acknowledges that the Honourable Court taxed party and party costs against the Commission in the sum of Kenya Shillings Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Twelve and Forty Cents (Kshs. 416,112.40), and that the Decree Holder has since commenced Garnishee proceedings, pursuant to which this Honourable Court issued a Garnishee Order Nisi against the Commission's Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 held at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch. The deponent depones that the said account is a special compensation account established under Sections 115(2), 111(1) and 111(1A) of the Land Act, used exclusively for receiving monies from acquiring bodies and remitting compensation payments to project-affected persons whose land has been acquired by the Government, and that the funds held therein do not belong to the Commission nor are they available for its use, benefit or disposal, being instead held for the benefit of citizens of Kenya and therefore not available for attachment. 19.The deponent further depones that the Garnishee proceedings offend the provisions of Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 Rule 2(2)(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the Commission falls within the definition of a government department, a position affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Five Star Agencies Limited & Another v National Land Commission & 2 Others (Civil Appeal E290 & 328 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2024] KECA 439 (KLR). He contends that the execution process commenced by the Decree Holder is invalid and null ab initio, and that the proper mode of enforcing a Court order or Judgment against the Government is by way of Judicial Review proceedings, not Garnishee proceedings. 20.Furthermore, he deposes that no prejudice would be visited upon the Decree Holder should the orders sought be granted, and prays that the Garnishee Order Nisi be set aside in the interests of justice. 21.In response and opposition to the Application the Decree Holder/Respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 27/10/2025. 22.While opposing the application the Decree Holder raised several grounds. At the outset, the Decree Holder points out that the Judgment Debtor has itself admitted to the costs taxed and due, yet has advanced no satisfactory explanation for its failure to settle the decretal sum, seeking instead to frustrate the execution process on mere procedural technicalities. 23.That the costs were taxed as far back as 19/07/2022 and notwithstanding repeated demands, the Judgment Debtor has persistently failed to honour the same, making the present application nothing more than a further attempt to deny and delay payment of the decretal sum of Kshs. 416,112.40 to the Decree Holder. The Decree Holder further contends that the Honourable Court has already granted a Garnishee Order Nisi and that the execution process is well underway, the Judgment Debtor having failed to demonstrate any prejudice suffered since the order was granted in April 2025. 24.On the question of law, the Decree Holder firmly contests the Judgment Debtor's characterisation of itself as a government department for the purposes of the Government Proceedings Act, and asserts that the National Land Commission does not fall within the definition of a government department under that Act, rendering the Garnishee proceedings a legitimate and lawful mode of execution available to the Decree Holder. 25.The Decree Holder further submits that it is the Decree Holder, and not the Judgment Debtor, who stands to suffer grave injustice should the execution proceedings be stayed and the Garnishee Order Nisi lifted, as such orders would effectively deny the Decree Holder the fruits of a Judgment lawfully obtained and long outstanding. The application is accordingly opposed in its entirety as being calculated to delay and defeat the Decree Holder's right to execution. 26.The parties agreed to canvass the two applications by way of written submissions. The Decree Holder filed one set of submissions dated 27/10/2025 and submitted on the two applications. On their part the Judgment debtor filed their submissions dated 10/11/2025. Petitioner/ Decree Holder’s Submissions 27.The Decree Holder's submissions are anchored on the Judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 15/04/2021, wherein costs of the suit were awarded to the Petitioner and payable by the Respondent. The Petitioner's party and party bill of costs dated 30/07/2021, which sought Kshs. 12,907,822, was upon taxation reduced to Kshs. 416,112.40 vide a Certificate of Taxation dated 19/07/2022. Despite repeated demands, the Respondent has persistently failed to settle the decretal sum, prompting the Petitioner to institute Garnishee proceedings by application dated 2/04/2025, resulting in the issuance of a Garnishee Order Nisi against Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 held at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, on 25/04/2025. The Respondent thereafter filed an application dated 29/04/2025 seeking a temporary stay and setting aside of the said order, whereupon this Honourable Court on 8/05/2025 granted a limited stay of seven days, which period has since lapsed. 28.According to the Petitioner, whereas on the principal legal controversy, the Respondent contends that it qualifies as a government department for purposes of Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 Rule 2(2)(b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Five Star Agencies Limited & Another v National Land Commission & 2 Others (supra). The Petitioner however counters this argument in his submission drawing the Court's attention to the decision of Justice Prof. Nixon Sifuna in ABSA Bank Kenya PLC v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (Commercial Case No. E411 of 2023), wherein the learned Judge, characterising the Government Proceedings Act as a colonial relic that has outlived its usefulness, declared Sections 13A and 21 thereof as unconstitutional and inoperative. 29.The Petitioner further relies on Article 2(4) of the Constitution, which provides that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency, a position he argues is reinforced by the Court of Appeal in National Assembly & 47 Others v Okoiti & 169 Others (Civil Applications E577, E581, E585 & E596 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2024] KECA 39, where the Court underscored that invalidation of a law found to be ultra vires the Constitution must be immediate. The Petitioner accordingly submits that the Respondent cannot invoke the protection of a statute that is legally inoperative to evade compliance with a valid Court order for costs. 30.On the Respondent's application for stay under Order 22 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Petitioner submits that the provision applies exclusively where a suit is pending before a Court against the decree-holder instituted by the Judgment-debtor, and that no such suit exists in the present matter. The Petitioner further submits that the Respondent has neither offered security for the decretal sum nor demonstrated any genuine intention to satisfy the decree, while the Garnishee has confirmed in its Replying Affidavit that the subject account holds sufficient funds to satisfy the order and that it stands ready to comply with any lawful orders of the Court. 31.The Petitioner urges the Court to uphold the trite principle that a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of their Judgment, as affirmed in Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates v East African Standard [2002] KEHC 1167 (KLR), and further invokes the obiter observations of Justice Patrick Kiage JA in Civil Appeal No. E274 of 2022, National Land Commission v Tom Ojienda & Associates; National Bank of Kenya and Another (Garnishee), where the Learned Judge remarked with evident disapproval on Judgment debtors who acknowledge their indebtedness yet compel decree-holders to pursue protracted enforcement proceedings. The Petitioner accordingly urges this Honourable Court to dismiss the Respondent's application for stay, allow the Garnishee Application as prayed, and direct that the decretal amount together with costs be released from the Garnishee account to the Petitioner. Respondent and Judgment Debtors Submissions 32.The Respondent and Judgment Debtor's written submissions are directed at two applications, namely the Petitioner's Garnishee application dated 2/04/2025 and the Respondent's own application dated 29/04/2025, and raise two principal issues for determination: whether the Government Proceedings Act applies to the National Land Commission, and whether the Garnishee application should succeed. 33.The Respondent does not dispute the taxed costs of Kshs. 416,112.40 but firmly contends that the Garnishee proceedings instituted by the Applicant are incompetent, bad in law and unsustainable, on the ground that the Commission falls squarely within the definition of government for purposes of Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act, which expressly prohibits execution, attachment or any process in the nature thereof against the Government for enforcement of payment of money or costs. The Respondent further contends that the Applicant has not exhausted the remedies available to it under the Government Proceedings Act before resorting to the extreme measure of attaching the Commission's accounts, rendering the application premature. 34.In support of its primary submission, the Respondent relies heavily on the Court of Appeal decision in Five Star Agencies Limited & Another v National Land Commission & 2 Others (supra), wherein the Court of Appeal held that the National Land Commission is a State organ infused with governmental character and that execution under the Civil Procedure Rules, including Garnishee proceedings, is barred insofar as the Government is concerned, the proper procedure being that stipulated under the Government Proceedings Act. 35.According to the Respondent’s submission, it is their contention that the above position was further affirmed by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Reference No. E001 of 2024, National Land Commission v Hon. Attorney General & Law Society of Kenya, where the apex Court held that government under the Government Proceedings Act includes Constitutional Commissions such as the National Land Commission, which is therefore insulated from execution proceedings, attachment of assets and Garnishee of accounts in satisfaction of a Decree under Sections 21 and 25 of the Act. The Respondent further draws support from Republic v County Secretary, Nairobi City County & Another ex parte Wachira Nderitu Ngugi & Co. Advocates [2016] eKLR, where the Court held that the only recourse available to a Decree Holder against Government is to apply for an order of mandamus against the Chief Officer, and upon obtaining such orders, to apply for committal in the event of non-compliance. 36.On the question of whether the application should succeed on its merits, the Respondent submits that Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, is a special compensation account established under Section 115(2) of the Land Act 2012, opened and maintained solely for the purpose of receiving and disbursing compensation payments to project-affected persons whose land has been compulsorily acquired by the national or county government, and that the funds therein are neither for the use, benefit nor disposal of the Commission. 37.The Respondent further invokes the decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 29B of 2016, Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates v National Land Commission, where Sewe J found that the land compensation account is a special account for the safe custody of funds received on behalf of government agencies including KeNHA, KURA and KeRRA, and that the funds therein are not debts due to the Judgment debtor for the purposes of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Additionally, the Respondent relies on Section 26A of the National Land Commission Act, which expressly provides that a Court shall not issue Garnishee or charging orders against any bank account opened and maintained by the Commission. The Respondent accordingly prays that the Garnishee application dated 2/04/2025 be dismissed and the application dated 29/04/2025 be allowed with costs. Analysis and Determination 38.I have read and carefully considered the pleadings, affidavits and written submissions filed by all parties in respect of the two applications before this Court, namely the Decree Holder's Garnishee application dated 2/04/2025 and the Judgment Debtor's application dated 29/04/2025. I now proceed to deliver my Ruling. 39.Having considered the competing arguments of the parties, I am satisfied that the following issues arise for determination in this matter.i.Whether the Government Proceedings Act, Cap 40, and specifically Section 21(4) thereof, applies to the National Land Commission so as to shield it from Garnishee proceedings.ii.Whether Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 held at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, is a special compensation account not amenable to attachment by way of Garnishee proceedings.iii.Whether the Judgment Debtor's application dated 29/04/ 2025 seeking a temporary stay and review of the Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 25/04/2025 is merited; and finally,iv.What orders ought to issue in respect of the two applications. 40.On the first issue, the Judgment Debtor's primary line of defence is that the National Land Commission, being a Constitutional Commission established under Article 67(1) of the Constitution and operationalised by the National Land Commission Act No. 5 of 2012, falls within the definition of government for purposes of the Government Proceedings Act, Cap 40, and is therefore shielded from execution, attachment and Garnishee proceedings by virtue of Section 21(4) of that Act. 41.In support of this contention, the Judgment Debtor places considerable reliance on the Court of Appeal decision in Five Star Agencies Limited & Another v National Land Commission & 2 Others (supra), where the Court of Appeal held that the National Land Commission is a State organ and that execution under the Civil Procedure Rules, including Garnishee proceedings, is barred insofar as the Government is concerned. The Judgment Debtor further anchors its submissions on the Supreme Court advisory opinion in Reference No. E001 of 2024, National Land Commission v Hon. Attorney General & Law Society of Kenya, where the apex Court expressed the view that government under the Government Proceedings Act includes Constitutional Commissions such as the National Land Commission, rendering it insulated from execution proceedings, attachment of assets and Garnishee of accounts. 42.The Decree Holder challenges this argument by drawing the Court's attention to the decision of Justice Prof. Nixon Sifuna in ABSA Bank Kenya PLC v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (Commercial Case No. E411 of 2023), wherein the learned Judge subjected the Government Proceedings Act to a searching constitutional scrutiny and found it wanting. The learned Judge described the Act in terms that bear repeating. He observed that the Act is;“… a colonial relic that was conceived during colonial time, to control litigation against the repressive unelected and therefore illegitimate regime" and that it "is therefore a dinosaur that has outlived its usefulness and needs to be abandoned or refashioned in a way that is in sync with our current circumstances and prevailing legal order." 43.On that basis, the learned Judge proceeded to declare Sections 13A and 21 of the Government Proceedings Act unconstitutional and inoperative, holding that;“To the extent that they offend the letter and spirit of the Constitution, sections 13A and 21 of the Government Proceedings Act are hereby declared unconstitutional." 44.This Court is alive to the apparent tension between the Court of Appeal decision in Five Star Agencies (supra) and the High Court decision in ABSA Bank Kenya PLC v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (supra). The Court of Appeal in Five Star Agencies proceeded on the assumption that Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act was a valid and operative provision of the law. It did not have the benefit of considering the constitutional validity of the provision, as the question of constitutionality was not placed before it. The decision in ABSA Bank Kenya PLC v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation, on the other hand, directly confronted the constitutionality of Section 21 and declared it unconstitutional and inoperative. This Court is bound to give effect to that declaration unless and until it is reversed by a superior Court on appeal. 45.The constitutional framework within which this analysis must be conducted is clear. Article 2(4) of the Constitution provides that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency. The Court of Appeal reinforced the immediacy of this principle in National Assembly & 47 Others v Okoiti & 169 Others (supra), where it stated that;“A plain reading of the above article leaves no doubt that the invalidation of any law found to be ultra vires the Constitution should be immediate." 46.It follows therefore that once Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act was declared unconstitutional by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it ceased to have legal effect and no party can seek refuge in its provisions. The High Court in Law Society of Kenya v Kenya Revenue Authority & Another [2017] eKLR put the matter plainly when it stated that;“It's trite that an unconstitutional law is not law and actions or decisions taken pursuant to the unconstitutional law would outright be illegal." 47.This Court notes that the declaration of unconstitutionality in ABSA Bank Kenya PLC v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation(supra) remains unchallenged and no legislative action has been taken by Parliament to revise or reinstate the impugned provisions. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the Judgment Debtor cannot invoke Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act as a shield against the Garnishee proceedings instituted by the Decree Holder. The first issue is accordingly determined against the Judgment Debtor. 48.On whether the subject account is a special compensation account not amenable to attachment, the Judgment Debtor and the Garnishee both raise a further and distinct objection to the attachment, submitting that Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, is a special compensation account contemplated under Sections 115(2), 111(1) and 111(1A) of the Land Act, used exclusively for receiving monies from acquiring bodies and remitting compensation payments to project-affected persons whose land has been compulsorily acquired by the Government, and that the funds therein are held in trust and are not available for attachment. 49.In support of this contention, the Judgment Debtor further invokes Section 26A of the National Land Commission Act, which expressly provides that a Court shall not issue Garnishee or charging orders against any bank account opened and maintained by the Commission. Reliance is additionally placed on the decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 29B of 2016, Professor Tom Ojienda & Associates v National Land Commission, where Sewe J found that the land compensation account is a special account for the safe custody of funds received on behalf of government agencies including KeNHA, KURA and KeRRA, and that the funds therein are not debts due to the Judgment debtor for the purposes of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 50.This Court takes note of these submissions and finds them to carry considerable weight. The law on Garnishee proceedings is settled in that for a Garnishee order to issue, the monies sought to be attached must be debts due or accruing due from the Garnishee to the Judgment debtor. Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is instructive in this regard. 51.Where, as is averred here by both the Judgment Debtor and the Garnishee, the funds in the subject account do not belong to the Commission but are received from government acquiring agencies and held in trust for project-affected persons awaiting compensation, those funds cannot properly be characterised as debts due to the Judgment Debtor. They are trust monies held for a designated and statutorily prescribed purpose, and their attachment would occasion grave prejudice not only to the Commission but to innocent third parties who are entitled to receive compensation for land compulsorily acquired from them. 52.This Court further notes that Section 26A of the National Land Commission Act provides an express statutory prohibition against the issuance of Garnishee or charging orders against any bank account maintained by the Commission. This is a specific legislative provision directed at the very situation before this Court, and it cannot be wished away by the Decree Holder's submissions. The decision of Sewe J in Miscellaneous Application No. 29B of 2016 further fortifies this position. 53.This Court therefore finds that the subject account, being a special compensation account within the meaning of Sections 115(2), 111(1) and 111(1A) of the Land Act and protected by Section 26A of the National Land Commission Act, is not amenable to attachment by way of Garnishee proceedings. The second issue is accordingly determined in favour of the Judgment Debtor on this discrete point. 54.The third issue is whether the Judgment Debtor's application for stay and review is merited. Now, the Judgment Debtor's application dated 29/04/2025 invokes Order 22 Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that where a suit is pending against the holder of a decree in the name of the person against whom the decree was passed, the Court may stay execution pending the determination of that suit. The Decree Holder correctly submits that this provision has no application in the present circumstances, as there is no pending suit by the Judgment Debtor against the Decree Holder before this or any other Court touching on the subject matter herein. Therefore, the Judgment of 15/04/2021 remains undisturbed, no appeal having been preferred against it in the nearly four years since its delivery. 55.Nonetheless, this Court retains an inherent discretion to review and set aside its own orders in appropriate circumstances, and the application for review falls to be considered on its merits. In view of this Court's finding on the second issue above, namely that the subject account is a special compensation account not amenable to attachment, the Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 25/04/2025 in respect of that specific account cannot be sustained. 56.To leave a Garnishee order nisi in place against an account that is by statute and by the nature of the funds held therein not subject to attachment would be to allow an order that serves no useful purpose and that may cause unwarranted disruption to compensation payments due to project-affected persons. 57.This Court is however alive to the observation of Justice Patrick Kiage JA in Civil Appeal No. E274 of 2022, National Land Commission v Tom Ojienda & Associates; National Bank of Kenya and Another (Garnishee), where the learned Judge remarked with evident disapproval that:“This is where Courts might well consider themselves ill-used by litigants unwilling to do that which they must unless the Courts speak." 58.This Court associates itself fully with those observations. The Judgment Debtor has admitted the debt, has offered no credible commitment to pay it, and has come before this Court not with any genuine legal defence to the debt itself but with a series of procedural objections designed to frustrate enforcement. The principle that a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of their Judgment, affirmed in Machira t/a Machira & Co. Advocates v East African Standard [2002] KEHC 1167 (KLR) where the Court held;“That the ordinary principle is that a successful party is entitled to the fruits of his Judgment or of any decision of the Court giving him success at any stage," must be given meaningful effect. 59.The Decree Holder has waited since 2022 for satisfaction of costs that are not in dispute. That state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. 60.I do therefore make the finding that on the first application dated 2/04/2025, the Garnishee proceedings are not barred by Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act the provision having been declared unconstitutional and inoperative. I am aware that there is a decision made where it was held that an earlier decision made in 2005 in High Court Kisya Investments Ltd v Attorney General & Another [2005] KEHC 3226 (KLR) that Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act is constitutional. It is however instructive to note that the decision was made before the promulgation of the new Constitution and the Ruling by Justice Sifuna aligns with Article 48 of the Constitution regarding access to justice. 61.However, this Court finds that Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 held at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, is a special compensation account within the meaning of Sections 115(2), 111(1) and 111(1A) of the Land Act and is protected from Garnishee proceedings by Section 26A of the National Land Commission Act, such that the funds held therein are not available for attachment in satisfaction of the decretal sum. 62.At the same time, I do observe from the analysis above that on the application dated 29/04/2025, this Court finds that the application for stay under Order 22 Rule 25 is misconceived but that the prayer for review and setting aside of the Garnishee Order Nisi is merited to the extent that the subject account is not amenable to attachment. 63.In the premises, this Court makes the following orders:i.The Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 25/04/2025 against Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00 held at National Bank of Kenya, Hill Plaza Branch, is hereby set aside.ii.The Garnishee application dated 2/04/2025 is hereby dismissed to the extent that it seeks attachment of Account Number 0XXXXXXXXXXX00, the same being a special compensation account protected by Section 26A of the National Land Commission Act and Sections 115(2), 111(1) and 111(1A) of the Land Act.iii.Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court hereby directs the National Land Commission to satisfy the decretal sum of Kenya Shillings Four Hundred and Sixteen Thousand One Hundred and Twelve and Forty Cents (Kshs. 416,112.40) due to the Decree Holder pursuant to the Certificate of Taxation dated 19/07/2022, within sixty (60) days from the date of this Ruling, by payment from such other funds as may be available to the Commission for that purpose.iv.In the event that the National Land Commission fails to satisfy the decretal sum within the period stipulated in Order 3 above, the Decree Holder shall be at liberty to institute such further enforcement proceedings as are available to it in law, including Judicial Review proceedings by way of an application for an order of mandamus compelling the relevant officer of the Commission to effect payment.v.The Judgment Debtor's application dated 29/04/2025 is hereby allowed only to the extent of Order 1 above and is otherwise dismissed.vi.Given the circumstances of this matter, including the Judgment Debtor's prolonged failure to satisfy an undisputed debt and its conduct in these proceedings, the costs of both applications shall be borne by the Judgment Debtor, the National Land Commission. 64.It is so ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT THIKA VIA VIDEOLINK THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.………………………MOGENI JJUDGEIn the presence of:Mr. Wamai for the Decree Holder/ApplicantJudgment Debtor/Respondent - AbsentMiss Koskei holding brief for Mr. Wamula for GarnisheeMr. Melita - Court Assistant