https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6893

Orion East Africa Limited v Mugama Farmers Co-operative Union Limited & another (Civil Suit 343 of 2002) [2026] KEHC 6893 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (14 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 6893 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Civil Suit 343 of 2002 BK Njoroge, J May 14, 2026 Between Orion East Africa Limited Decree holder and Mugama Farmers Co-operative Union Limited Judgment debtor and The Co-Operative Bank Of Kenya Limited Garnishee Ruling 1.The Application before the Court seeks for numerous prayers (a whooping 37) but in the main is an application for review of the earlier Court Orders delivered by Ado J. The Application and the prayers sought are a litany of laments against Judges who are members of the Commercial and Tax Division or those who have since left to serve other Courts. The Court did take a keen interest in the Applicant who keeps knocking at the doors of the Court, like the proverbial persistent widow in the Bible who would not let the judge be still. She so vexed and nagged the judge (unjust he is said to have been) such that he gave in and gave her justice. See Luke 18:1-8. 2.This Court went out of its way mindful of the fact that the Applicant was represented by a lay person, hence acting “pro se” through one MR. RUO MAINA. He had already introduced himself to the Court as an Interlocutor/Intercessor and a Senior citizen, hence deserving of reasonable care and protection by this Court. 3.Having this in mind and knowing of the complexities and anxieties that lay persons may face in Court processes and proceedings, this Court was minded to hear the Applicant physically in Court. This was so that apart from filing submissions, which the Court would read, the Court would get an opportunity to hear the Applicant’s pleas, cries, prayers and venting. This Could have assisted the Court in understanding, beyond reading the Court’s record, why Mr. Maina Ruo despite being heard by a record number of Judges in this Division, some seniors and some novices or RRI Judges (as he unflatteringly refers to some) still feels his case is not being heard or understood. That justice is being denied to him. 4.Unfortunately, despite the orders made on 24th September, 2025 for a physical hearing, Mr. Maina Ruo neither filed submissions nor turned up in Court on 24th February, 2026. This date is crucial as the Court had set it aside to physically hear the Applicant in all his matters allocated to this Court. The Court went out of its way to grant the Applicant his day in Court. However, that opportunity was not take by the Applicant in any of his matters. It was left upon Mr. Kiche, Counsel for the Applicant to oppose the application physically. The Court thereafter retreated to consider this determination. Background Facts 5.The Applicant (Decree Holder) filed the Notice of Motion dated 24th March, 2025 seeking several orders. He sought that;1.That the trial judge's decision making process must determine what the facts are in the proper application of the law to these evidence based facts. The Judge must bring order to any confusion of contested facts and theories of law, judges decide cases by hypothesis and evidence based certainties. The chief Justice and the President of the Supreme Court of Kenya has on numerous occasions admonished Judges for abusing legalistic technicalities disguised as absolute legal doctrines to deny innocent litigants justice.2.That we beseech judge Moses Ado to grant a Review of his Ruling dated 20th March, 2025 which was delivered still born due to the fact that the underlying ex-parte Orders given illicitly on 23rd July, 2024 by Judge Josephine Wayua Mong'are were barred by the doctrinal statutes of estoppel. The Review should correct the glaring apparent errors and omissions on the court's records which are self evident and don't require elaborate arguments to be established.3.That for starters, the Ruling of the Rapid Response Initiative (RRI) Judge Hon. Justice Moses Ado being a novice Judge in the hierarchy of the Judiciary of Kenya is irregular as the ruling of the court is cleverly disguised thus, the Judge pretends to undertake Appellate functions overturning the final decisions and judgments previously entered by experienced senior Judges like Hon. Justice J. Osiemo in HCCC 1822 of 2000; Hon. Justice F. Tuiyot in HCCC 343 of 2002 and the current Presiding Judge of the Milimani Commercial & Tax Division Hon. F. Gikonyo in HCCC 343 of 2002; all the above judges are far more experienced and well versed in Kenya's judicature and their judgments on the record should be respected and must count for something.4.That the Ruling given on 20th March, 2025 by Hon, Justice Moses Ado violates the precedence setting Judgment in the matter conducted by the Presiding Judge Hon. Justice Alfred Mabeya dated 12th May. 2023 wherein the senior judge succinctly explains the meaning of the word Garnishee Nisi and Garnishee Absolute which are simple rudimentary terms not needing elaborate explanation and which most lay students of business law understand easily but the novice Judge Moses Ado struggles to understand and interchangeably seems to confuse with the simple operative word; decreed debtor. The role of a Garnishee Bank in these matters should simply be to confirm to the court that the decreed debtors were in fact customers of the Garnishee Bank holding 34,816,200 stock shares in the Bank on behalf of the judgment debtors and that they were indeed indebted to the Decree Holder.5.That the Hon. Justice Moses Ado has embarrassed the entire Judiciary of Kenya by entertaining the Advocates for the Garnishee Bank, allowing them to hijack a very simple Execution Process by turning his court into a Kangaroo Court of the absurd. The Garnishee Bank should never have been allowed to mount defense on behalf of the Defendants who were unrepresented on account of the matters of indebtedness and Garnishee hearings having been canvassed and determined by a competent court a decade ago and files closed. This was a clear case of miscarriage of justice which must attract severe condemnation.6.That the Honorable Judge Moses Ado consistently relied on an invalid ex-parte Order dated 15th August 2024 which was issued in an irregular cavalier manner by Justice Josephine Wayua Mong'are wherein, she recalled her own judgement and made further injurious orders on her own motion and reviewed her earlier Orders irregularly suo moto. She had earlier made an irrational dismissal of our Application dated 29th June, 2023 without hearing the matters in contention or at all. Our Application dated 29th June, 2023 was never controverted nor responded to by the Garnishee Bank and the illicitly obtained ex-parte Orders were never sustained nor canvassed but unfairly formed the basis of the Ruling of Justice Moses Ado on 20th March, 2025. This amounts to a conniving nauseating shameless audacity to defeat the ends of justice.7.That the Hon. Justice Moses Ado chose to completely ignore the Application dated 12th November, 2024 under certificate of urgency; the Motion which was in Arrest of Ruling scheduled for 20th March, 2025 was never contested nor controverted by the Respondents and we consider this action by the Judge to be a travesty of justice and that Ruling which was read in Court on 20th March, 2025 should be declared as delivered dead on arrival.8.That courts have the authority to rectify evident errors on the surface of a ruling provided they are brought within acceptable legal time lines. Judges are called to a high calling and are not supposed to be nonchalant, lazy, mediocre, indecisive or under the influence.9.That today, we wrote a letter Ref: GET/Orion/DR/Coopbank/20032024 dated 20TH March, 2025 addressed to the Deputy Registrar Hon. Noelle Kyanya seeking access to court records to enable the proper mounting of a plausible case for review. With your permission my lord, we should be allowed to peruse the court files and all deposited records on the matters of HCCC 1822 of 2000 and НССС 343 of 2002 under the supervision of the Deputy Registrar. In retrospection, and after previously delving into the court's records, we found the following anomalies: -10.That our Application dated 29th June, 2023 has never been canvassed or heard nor contested by the Garnishee Bank and the matters of HCCC 1822 of 2000 and HССС 343 of 2002, there was an obvious failure of consideration by the court in observing its own established doctrine of fanctus officio where the Senior Counsel John Morris Ohaga and advocate Isaac Kiche were irregularly allowed to penetrate the matters and even going further, were unprocedurally allowed to obtain ex-party Orders without a coram, status or locus standi in the matters before court and previously determined by senior Judges of the same court. On 7th November 2023, the two Advocates being officers of this Honorable Court deliberately absconded from the Execution Proceedings for НССС 1822 of 2000 and HCCC 343 of 2002 without offering any explanation for their failure to attend court, this was done in spite of an existing penal notice.11.That despite Judge Josephine Wayua Mong'are demanding that Senior Counsel John Morris Ohaga and his assistant Advocate Isaac Kiche submit their final submissions or respond to our final submissions in our Application dated 29th June, 2023, they chose to ignore the court orders and instead cheekily moved court obtain favorable illicit Exparte court Orders dated 15th August, 2024 where the Judge unfairly Ruled that our Application dated 29th June, 2023 lacked merit without even hearing our case or giving any explanation for her skewed Ruling. We have been mistreated by judges for many years because of our belief in Christ Jesus my God and King in complete violation of Article 32 & 48 of the Bill of Rights on freedoms of conscience, religion and opinion.12.That the Ruling of the RRI Judge Hon. Justice Moses Ado read in court on 20th March, 2025 further confirms our worst fears that the RRI court is under the capture and control of vested interests by powers far and beyond our realms of realty and that we have been mistreated through denial of fundamental Rights, Threats to Life, Flimsy recusals by Judges now for 25 years within the corridors of this court without respite because of our belief in Jesus Christ my God and King in complete violation of Chapter 4 in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.13.That there are NO supporting documents on the record showing how the purported Bank statements and payment particulars for the contentious Kshs.17,394,410/=30 cents were effected or reflected and why the Garnishee Bank entered court pretending to be the Judgment Debtor instead of appearing properly under the status of a Garnishee Bank.14.That the Purported Kshs.17,394,410/=30 cents, ostensibly paid to Senior Counsel Fredrick Ngatia are suspected to be proceeds of crime as there are not supporting source documents in the court records showing how the said funds were crystalized. There are NO documents on the record showing that the funds are proceeds of official loans or grants to the Judgment Debtor from the Garnishee Bank or any other financier. What was the source and purpose of those funds seeing as the Judgement Debtor had claimed to be insolvent in their mitigation before court?15.That the aggressive putsch by the Garnishee Bank to kick me out of court from representing my company is not based on any concerns for the laws of the land or any public good but is a stratagem or artifice to gain an unfair advantage over the Applicant Orion East Africa Limited. In our Application dated 29th June, 2023 there was NO change of Advocate as wrongly claimed in the Ruling of 20th March, 2025 as this was a fresh new application lodged in person under Article 48 & 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Mr. Ruo Maina an Intercessor/Interlocutor for the Applicant appeared in person without an Advocate as non was previously on the record. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules which is an inferior piece of legislation to the Constitution of Kenya 2010 are therefore irrelevant and clearly inapplicable.16.That there are NO court records showing that the contentious Kshs.17,394,410/=30 cents was paid to Orion East Africa Limited the Decree Holder is a fallacy, and there is nothing on the record to indicate that the Decreed Debt of Kshs.590 Billion owing by the Garnishee Bank was satisfied in anyway or at all.17.That there is nothing on the court's record showing that Senior Counsel Fredrick Ngatia was in the service of Orion East Africa Limited when the matter was purportedly being canvassed for settlement ostensibly in the appellate court; The law firm of Ngatia & Associates had already exited the matters in 2018 and abandoned any further appearances in court on behalf of Orion East Africa Limited. Mr. Fredrick Ngatia in his personal capacity as an Advocate was never engaged by the applicant to negotiate or receive the contentious Kshs.17,394,410/-30 cents or any other proceeds or fruits of its judgment at all. Mr. Fredrick Ngatia never appeared in court to canvass any matters for Orion East Africa Limited instead, it was the Associate Advocate Ms. Carol who lead the deliveries and conducted the matters as attested in the court's proceedings. It is trite law for proceeds of any court awards to be channeled directly to the Decree Holder.18.Under the banking customs and practice, all bank deposits belong to the bank. the contentious amount of Ksh. 17, 394, 410/=30 cents being proceed of theft, were drawn by Dr. Gideon Maina Muriuki OGW, EBS, MBS, CBS with a propensity for violating court orders and a Worshipful Deacon in a pseudo Christian CITAM church that was adversely mentioned in a Presidential devil worship report. The stolen money Ksh. 17,394,410/=30 cents was shared amongst the conniving culprits so that the they can instead blame SC Fredrick Ngatia for pilferage out of jealousy and professional rivalry in an attempt to pull him down to their level of mediocrity.19.That it is inappropriately unfair now for the court to imply improper motive against the conduct of Senior Counsel Fredrick Ngatia as an afterthought without giving him a chance to defend himself on what he personally knows about the purported contentious payment of Kshs. 17,394,419/-30 cents.20.That in the Court records, there is a letter Ref; CL/654/2001 dated 21st June, 2018 addressed to the Deputy Registrar authored by the law firm of Ngatia & associates which inter alia contradicts the courts skewed findings in the Ruling of 20th March, 2025 states as follows:-"RE: HCCC NO. 343 OF 2002 21.Orion East Africa Limited -vs- Mugama Farmers Co-operative Union Limited".21.That we refer to the Order issued by Hon. Justice Tuiyot on 10th April, 2018 whereat the court directed that the shares owned by the Judgment Debtor be attached to answer the decree for the sum of Kshs.2,485,058/= 60 including interest at the rate of 3% per month from 28th August, 2002 until full satisfaction of the decree together with costs of the suit of Kshs. 121,126/=10 and interest thereon.22.That we attach hereto a copy of the decree which was issued on 16th September, 2002. 23.23.That we note that warrants of attachment dated 14th June, 2018 were allocated to Humphrey Okuku Agencies Auctioneers whereat it is erroneously indicated that the decretal amount is Kshs. 16,806,416/=34 cents.24.24. That we have computed the decretal amount due to our client which is in the sum of Kshs.323,107,097/=52 cents.25.That hence the total amount due to our client as at 21st June, 2018 is Kshs.323,228,223/=62 cents. 26.26.That we do thus cancel the earlier warrants issued on 14th June, 2018 and re-issue fresh warrants of attachment indicating the correct amount due to our client in the sum of Kshs.323,228,223/=62 cents. 27.Yours faithfully,Ngatia & Associates ADVOCATES27.That regarding the matters of HCCC 1822 of 2000, the same law firm of Ngatia & Associates had this to say in а letter Ref:- FN/GEN/2006 dated 11th August, 2009 which was in response to another letter ref:- CS/294.vol.v111/34 authored by the Commissioner for Co-operative Development.28.The Commissioner for Co-operative Development Ministry of Co-operative Development & Marketing Social Security House NAIROBІ.ATT: S.W. OngetiDear Sir,Re: Tetu Coffee Growers Co-operative Society Ltd In LiquidationWe write further to the discussions held at our chambers today and write to confirm as hereunder.That you will issue an undertaking to us to the effect that you will offer the shares for sale and endeavor to obtain the most favorable price and that you will utilize the sale proceeds as hereunder: -a)You will within 7 days from the date of sale remit to us the decretal sum, cost and interest thereon from 14th February, 2001 up to 14th February, 2007. Our client has agreed to waive interest thereafter provided that the sale process is completed within the next 30 days. If the process is not completed within the next said period, the waiver shall stand rescinded.Please let us have your undertaking in the terms stated hereinabove so that we can take further steps in the matter.Yours faithfully,Ngatia & Associates Advocates29.That in a closely related issue contained in a letter Ref:- JM/43/00 dated 3rd March, 2003 authored by the law firm of Mugo Kamau and Company Advocates now the Honorable Justice Mugo Kamau of the Nyamira High Court who had these to say:-Deputy RegistrarHigh Court Of KnyaBox 30420 Nairobі.Dear Sir,RE: HCCC NO. 1822 OF 2000Orion East Africa Limited -vs- Tetu Coffee Growers Co-operative Society LimitedWe refer to the consent Order made on 20th February, 2003 to the effect that the Managing Director of the Cooperative Bank of Kenya do appear in Court on 20th March, 2003 for cross examination. Kindly let us have the Witness Summons for service.Yours faithfully,Mugo Kamau & Company Advocates30.That the Applicant is not aware of lodging any appeals to the Appellate Court over any dispute with the Garnishee Bank or the Decreed Debtors and there are NO instructions to any counsel or paid agent (let alone SC. Mr. Fredrick Ngatia) to enter appearance or to negotiate for any proceeds on its behalf. There are NO court records of any shed sworn or unsworn Affidavits, Memorandum of Appeal or Hearing Notice to suggest any such an Appeal was in the offing or was being canvassed by any parties on behalf of the decree holder. It must be observed that we have absolutely NO control, privity or responsibility for whatever agreements or payments Senior Counsel Mr. Fredrick Ngatia may have entered or negotiated with the Co-operative Bank of Kenya or Mugama Farmers' Co-operative Union Limited in his personal or legal firm or in any other capacity.31.That there are NO court records showing how the strange Senior Counsel John Morris Ohaga and Advocate Isaac Kiche without status penetrated the matters of HCCC 1822 Of 2000 and HCCC 343 of 2002 without leave of court in clear violation of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.32.That the Affidavit sworn by Florence Njuguna on 24th July, 2024 and Advocate Samuel Kibugi in support of Ex-parte Orders dated 25th August, 2024 was not authorized by the Directors of the Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited at all. The mandatory Power of Attorney (POA) authorizing the two bank officers to act or represent the Bank on financial matters was missing thus, rendering the entire Affidavit a nugatory misadventure.33.That the Senior Counsel John Morris Ohaga and his Client the Co-operative Bank of Kenya are known adherents of Tubal-Cain as found in the Bible Book of Genesis 4:22, an Artificer in Mysticism, Witchcraft and Alchemy; the antithesis of the Christian God Jesus Christ. Tubal-Cain is depicted on their company logos and insignia deposited in court in the form of letter head logos, stamps, fascia etc. These signs are calculated to camouflage evil and to deceptively seduce Judges through spells and esoteric occultism. They have been misused in plain sight concealing their high level connections in Freemasonry to create confusion in courts, resulting in Judges constantly abandoning or recusing themselves whenever they fail or refuse to give favorable court outcomes in violation of Cap. 57 of the Witchcraft Act, in the matter of HCCC 1822 of 2000 and HССС 343 of 2002. Recently, the Presiding Judge of the Commercial and Tax Division Hon. Justice Alfred Mabeya and Hon. Justice Josephine Wayua Mong'are who were in conduct of the matters of HCCC 1822 of 2000 and 343 of 2002 recused themselves under unexplained strange torment by satanic forces in unclear circumstances, forcing them to recuse themselves without any logical explanation.34.35. THAT this Honorable Court found that the total outstanding decree amount as at 9th November, 2023 had reached a staggering Kshs.590 Billion which amount continues to attract compounded interest at the rate of 3% per month; in a bout of panic attack, the directors and senior staff of the Garnishee Bank irregularly embarked on filing Case Number, E619 of 2024 to neuter the Deponent Mr. Ruo Maina, intending to creating a monumental maneuvering side show, in a shameless machinations and mockery of this Honorable Court.35.That under the separation of power and roles in the Judiciary, Execution of Court Decree Orders is the Prerogative of the Deputy Registrar Hon. Noelle Kyanya who has deliberately shirked her responsibilities of Execution in Attachment induced by the beloved Garnishee Bank and its CEO and Groups Managing Director Dr. Gideon Maina Muriuki OGW, MBS, EBS, CBS compelling her to ignore the Attachment in Execution Orders issued by this honorable court on 24th June, 2024 with regards to 34,816,200 stock shares illegally held by the said culprits which were irregularly halted on 8th November, 2023 without affording the Applicant any explanation. What is currently before the RRI court is nonsensical shenanigans mining for technical loopholes to justify an unfair disposal of the matters calculated to deny the Decree Holder the fruits of its Judgment.36.That the Honorable Judge Hon. Justice Moses Ado in conduct of the matters of HCCC 1822 of 2000 and HССС 343 of 2002 should Review his Ruling of 20th March, 2025 by proceeding to cut the chase and smell the coffee by way of Ordering the Deputy Registrar Hon. Noelle Kyanya to complete the Execution Process as prescribed by law under Order 22, Rule 41 of the CPA and by further Ordering the Court's Bailiff to retrieve and deposit in this honorable court for our collection, CD's Certificates for 34,816, 200 stock shares held, restrained and prohibited from any transfer in Attachment by a valid Order of this Honorable Court dated 24th June, 2024.37.That under Article 35 of the Constitution of Kenya; on the Right to access to information, an order of this honorable court do issue to the Banking Regulators, the CMA, CBK and the Commissioner of Co-operatives to give a Preponderous Assessment and Anomalous Prospect Report on the regulatory risk exposure review of the Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited and its subsidiaries including its top management staff and board of directors for discovery before this Honorable Court. 6.In response to the Application, the Garnishee filed Grounds of Opposition dated 2nd April 2025 on the following grounds;a.The Application is misconceived, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of Court;b.There are no sufficient grounds within the meaning of section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 to review the Ruling delivered by the Court on 20th March, 2025. Issues for determination 7.After considering the Applicant’s Application, the Grounds of Opposition, the Garnishees submissions and oral highlights by Counsel; there is only one issue for determination;a.Whether the Court should review its ruling delivered on 20th March,2025. Analysis 8.The court has perused the Application. What stands out is that the Decree Holder is mainly seeking a Review of the Ruling dated 20th March 2025 by Hon. Judge Moses Ado. This is on the ground that there are “glaring apparent errors and omissions on the court's records which are self-evident and don't require elaborate arguments to be established”. 9.In contrast, the Garnishee took the position that the Decree-Holder has failed to meet the threshold for granting review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act as well as Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 10.The powers of the Court to review its own judgment lie pursuant to Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act which states as follows:80.ReviewAny person who considers himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. 11.Equally, Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides;(1)Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay.(2)A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review. 12.The Applicant herein maintained that “Hon. Justice Moses Ado chose to completely ignore the Application dated 12th November, 2024 under certificate of urgency; the Motion which was in Arrest of Ruling scheduled for 20th March, 2025 was never contested nor controverted by the Respondents and the Applicant considers this action by the Judge to be a travesty of justice and that Ruling which was read in Court on 20th March, 2025 should be declared as delivered dead on arrival. Courts have the authority to rectify evident errors on the surface of a ruling provided they are brought within acceptable legal time lines. Judges are called to a high calling and are not supposed to be nonchalant, lazy, mediocre, indecisive or under the influence.” 13.Those are indeed heavily loaded grounds. It therefore fails the Court why the Applicant would fail to back them up, unless he was just being a sensationalist. The Court is unable to discern this glaring error on the face of the record. 14.In Muyodi v Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation & Another [2006] 1 EA 243, the Court of Appeal described an error apparent on the face of the record as follows:“In Nyamogo & Nyamogo -vs- Kogo (2001) EA 174 this Court said that an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. There is real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. Where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. An error which has to be established by long drawn process of reasoning or on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Again, if a view adopted by the court in the original record is a possible one, it cannot be an error or wrong view and is certainly no ground for a review although it may be for an appeal.” 15.Further, in National Bank of Kenya Ltd v Njau [1997] KECA 71 (KLR) the Court of Appeal stated as follows;“A review may be granted whenever the court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review.” 16.From the foregoing analysis and guided by the above cited decisions, the Court confirms that this is not an issue of an error being apparent on the face of the record. The Applicant no doubt is genuinely aggrieved by the orders of the Court. However, the Applicant is essentially asking the Court to arrive at a different conclusion from the one arrived at in the Ruling dated 20th March 2025. As matters stand, appeals from this Court lie before the Appellate Court. This Court lack the jurisdiction to sit on an appeal on the Orders of Ado. J. 17.The application herein does not meet the legal threshold for review as the Applicant has failed to demonstrate to the Court that there was an error apparent on the face of the record. 18.The door that leads from this Court to the Appellate Court is the one that would be available to a party with the litany of complaints and woes, such as the Applicant. 19.In light of the above, the Court is not persuaded that the application for review is merited. The application is dismissed. 20.As to costs the same lie at the discretion of the Court. This discretion is wide and runs alongside the duty of a Court to save on costs of a vulnerable person seeking justice. The situation herein is different as the Applicant is a legal person distinct from the Senior Citizen, MR RUO MAINA. In the end the Applicant will bear the costs. Determination 21.The Applicant/Decree Holder’s Application by way of a Notice of Motion dated 24th March, 2025 is HEREBY dismissed for lack of merits. 22.The costs of the Application to be borne by the Applicant/ Decree Holder. 23.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MILIMANI THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.NJOROGE BENJAMIN K.JUDGEIn the presence of;N/A for the Decree Holder/Applicant.N/A for the Judgement Debtor/Respondent.Mr. Kiche for the Garnishee/Respondent.Ms. Susan Nzioka - Court Assistant.