[2025] KECPT 361 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 361 (KLR)

The tribunal found that the claimant, having initiated attachment of the respondent's motor vehicle and failing to either sell the vehicle or release it in a timely manner, was solely responsible for the accrual of storage charges. The tribunal emphasized that the claimant's conduct in pursuing both notice to show cause and warrant of attachment simultaneously was improper and led to unnecessary costs. The respondent was not at fault, as the vehicle could have been sold to satisfy the decretal sum and cover storage charges. Consequently, the tribunal held that the claimant must bear the storage fees, as the loss was self-inflicted by his own actions in the execution process.

Citation
[2025] KECPT 361 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Symon Noah Obayi; Respondent: George H. Juma
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
26 June 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case 575.E403 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Case / Ruling on Costs After Default Judgment and Execution Proceedings
Outcome
Claimant ordered to pay storage fees; file closed.
Judges
Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw, PO Aol
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgment, Costs and Expenses, Attachment of Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgment Costs and Expenses Attachment of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Symon Noah Obayi

Applicant

George H. Juma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Tribunal Case / Ruling on Costs After Default Judgment and Execution Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is responsible for payment of storage charges incurred after attachment of the respondent's motor vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the claimant acted properly in the execution process and in seeking notice to show cause and warrant of attachment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should bear any liability for the storage costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimant, having initiated attachment of the respondent's motor vehicle and failing to either sell the vehicle or release it in a timely manner, was solely responsible for the accrual of storage charges. The tribunal emphasized that the claimant's conduct in pursuing both notice to show cause and warrant of attachment simultaneously was improper and led to unnecessary costs. The respondent was not at fault, as the vehicle could have been sold to satisfy the decretal sum and cover storage charges. Consequently, the tribunal held that the claimant must bear the storage fees, as the loss was self-inflicted by his own actions in the execution process.

Court Disposition

Claimant ordered to pay storage fees; file closed.

Orders

  • The claimant shall pay the storage fees of KES 300,000.
  • The file is ordered as closed.