https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12954

Ouma v Occidental Insurance Co. Ltd (Civil Appeal E052 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 12954 (KLR) (7 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12954 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nakuru Civil Appeal E052 of 2021 JK Sergon, J July 7, 2026 Between Michael Otieno Ouma Appellant and Occidental Insurance Co. Ltd Defendant Ruling 1.Michael Otieno Ouma, the Decree Holder/Applicant herein took out the motion dated 17th December, 2025 whereof he sought for the following prayers:i.That this Honourable court do issue a break in order, force entry into, or in any way gain access to the Respondent’s premises, situate at Cresent Business Centre, 7th Floor, Parklands Road, Parklands, Nairobi for purposes of lawful execution of the warrants of attachment issued by this court on 14th of October, 2025.ii.That the OCS Parklands Police Station do provide police assistance and supervisions to the Applicant and/or Crater View Auctioneers during the execution of the break-iniii.That the OCS Parklands ensures peace, security and preservation of order during the said exercise, and protects all parties involved.iv.That the costs of this Application be provided for. 2.The applicant filed an affidavit he swore in support of the aforesaid application. Occidental Insurance Company Limited, the Respondent herein filed the Replying Affidavit sworn by Paul Murimi Kiongo to oppose the motion. The applicant filed a further affidavit also in answer to the replying affidavit. Parties were directed to file written submissions which they did. 3.I have considered the grounds stated on the face of the motion plus the facts deponed in the rival affidavits. I have further considered the written submissions filed by both sides. It is submission of the applicant that he has a judgment which was pronounced on his favour as against the Respondents. 4.The applicant further avers that he has commenced execution process by taking out warrants of attachment. He also avers that the proclamation attempts by the auctioneers have proved futile because the Respondent has denied them access to their premises therefore it is necessary to seek for breaking in orders and for security by the police. 5.The Respondent on the other hand opposed the application stating that the prayer for a breaking in order lacks a basis. It is point out that the warrants of attachment dated 14th October, 2025 were illegally obtained in contravention of court orders dated 19th September, 2025. It is said that the decree as obtained by the appellant was erroneous. The Respondent further argued that the appellant/applicant was to obtain fresh and proper decree from the Deputy Registrar with the participation of both parties and in compliance with Order 21 rules 8, 9A, 9B. 9C and 9D of the Civil Procedure Rules. 6.It is further the averment of the Respondent that the appellant should be allowed to extract a similar decree and warrants and purport to execute the same. 7.I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Respondent is emphatic that the appellant’s application is fundamentally flawed and amounts to an abuse of the court process. The Respondent pointed out that this court in its ruling of 19th September, 2025 directed the appellant to obtain a fresh and proper decree from the Deputy Registrar. 8.A critical examination of the provisions of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules will show that the rules require that a draft decree should be submitted to the advocates for the opposite party for approval before extraction and this ensures that both parties have an opportunity to verify the correctness before execution commences. 9.It is further submitted that the Deputy Registrar, in the presence of both parties and their representatives, was to undertake a proper calculation and issue a fresh and proper decree. It is argued that the appellant proceeded to extract a fresh decree which is similar to the one the court found to be erroneous 10.I have perused the ruling of 19th September, 2025 and it is clear that the court observed the applicant was at liberty to extract a proper decree administratively from the Deputy Registrar who would consider if this mater is fully discharged or not. It is apparent that the applicant followed up with Deputy Registrar who issued a fresh decree. 11.It is clear from the decree the outstanding sum as of 14th October, 2025 stood at Ksh 817,902/=. I am persuaded by the arguments of the applicant that the Respondent appears to have misconstrued the ruling of this court of 19th September, 2025. It is clear that the ruling never concluded that the decree herein and the resultant warrants were erroneous. 12.It is appreciated by both parties that the applicant is entitled to recover the decretal sum fully and he should not be impeded by any party. It is not disputed by the Respondent that when the auctioneers went to attach the Respondent, they were repulsed and doors closed, thus impeding a lawful execution process thus prompting the filing of the instant application. 13.In the end this court is satisfied that the application dated 17th December, 2025 has merit. The same is allowed as prayed with costs to the applicant. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 AT NAKURU.J. K. SERGONJUDGEIn presence of:C/A Jamleck/RutohMboga for the ApplicantMwenda for the Respondent