https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12302

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA** **AT NAKURU** **JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 25 OF 2019** REPUBLIC................................................................. APPLICANT VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIALIZATION...................................... 1ST RESPONDENT KENYA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, NAKURU ........................................................ 2ND RESPONDENT THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL.................... 3RD RESPONDENT AND NAFTALI KANEGENI T/A COMPUTER ARE US, GOODWILL ENGINEERING WORKS, CANLY AUTO SERVICES & CANLY SUPPLIES ............... DECREE HOLDER & EX-PARTE APPLICANT AND KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED ............ THIRD PARTY/GARNISHEE **RULING** 1. Before this Court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2026 brought by the Decree Holder and Ex-parte Applicant, **Naftali Kanegeni**, trading as Computer Are Us, Goodwill Engineering Works, Canly Auto Services and Canly Supplies. The said Motion is brought under Article 59 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; the Civil Procedure Act Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(e); and the Civil Procedure Rules Order 23 Rules 1, 2, 4 and 9; Order 49 Rules 1, 2, 5 and 7; Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 5; Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 50 Rule 1. 2. The Decree Holder seeks the following prayers; 1. ***Spent.*** 2. ***Spent.*** 3. ***Spent.*** 4. ***THAT a decree order absolute be issued transferring the funds in the 2nd Respondent/Judgment Debtor accounts No 1112977716 and A/c No 1296535665 both at KCB Bank Kenya Ltd at Nakuru/interested party to an A/c in the name of the Decree holder/ex - parte applicant.*** 5. ***THAT KCB Bank Kenya Ltd provides account statements for accounts No 1112977716 and A/c No 1296535665 both at KCB Bank Kenya Ltd demonstrating compliance and execution of the orders issued.*** 6. ***THAT costs of this application be provided for.*** 3. The application is vigorously opposed by the 2nd Respondent, Kenya Industrial Training Institute, through the replying affidavit of Mr. Wabwile Simiyu, the Director of the Institute, sworn on 23rd April 2026, as well as through oral submissions made by Miss Shinkia on behalf of the Respondent. 7. The factual background of this matter is largely uncontested and emerges from the affidavits on record and the submissions filed by the respective parties. The Decree Holder, Naftali Kanegeni, is a director and proprietor of the listed business names. He supplied goods and various types of merchandise to the 2nd Respondent, Kenya Industrial Training Institute, for several years. The goods supplied included electrical materials, examination materials, computer accessories, food stuffs and other assorted items as per various Local Purchase Orders, delivery notes and invoices. The goods were delivered to the Institute premises at the Nyahururu Nakuru Road under the inspection of the 2nd Respondent's officers. All the goods delivered were verified and received by the Institute's authorized committees as per the Institute norm of all material supplies. 8. A consent judgment was recorded on 13th August 2018 in Nakuru CMCC 251 of 2018 and a decree was issued. However, payments have trickled in a frustrating manner leading to despair and accumulated interest, and the principal amount remains partially outstanding. The 2nd Respondent has deliberately refused to pay the decree holder despite several reminders and court attendances that have taken place. A Notice to Show Cause has not elicited any conscience to settle the decretal amount despite the Notice to Show Cause being fixed for hearing several times. 9. The Decree Holder, Naftali Kanegeni, is 66 years old, having been born on 2nd March 1960. His health has deteriorated of late. The medical evidence on record, being the Valley View Medical Report, confirms that he has been diagnosed with an illness affecting his inner ear, with the diagnosis confirming migraine infections and inflammation of the inner ear leading to imbalances when walking, a condition usually referred to as vestibular imbalance. He also suffers from chest pain suggestive of angina pectoris and has been diagnosed with dyslipidemia. He has a history of benign prostatic enlargement and underwent transurethral resection of the prostate on 1st December 2022 at The Outspan Hospital. As a result of the illness, he cannot drive himself and has to walk with an aide. He cannot cross the road alone or operate any simple machine without assistance. The illness has taken a toll on him financially and he seeks the Court's compassion to assist in attaching against the 2nd Respondent. 10. On 25th February 2021, this Court, Hon. Justice H.K. Chemitei, issued an Order of Mandamus compelling the 2nd Respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of Kshs. 4,051,736 together with interest forthwith and or within 45 days from the date thereof. The Court further awarded costs of the application to the applicant. Despite this Mandamus Order, the Respondent has refused to settle the judgment debt, which stood at Kshs. 12,497,404 as at 14th March 2024. The Respondents on 5th November 2024 indicated to this Honourable Court that payment processing was on course, yet to date no single shilling has been paid. Notices to Show Cause dated 2nd December 2021, 1st August 2022 and 14th March 2024 were never resolved, with KITI always citing lack of funds as a reason not to comply with a valid court order. 11. The Decree Holder made investigations concerning the 2nd Respondent and discovered that the 2nd Respondent has funds obtained from students and/or from the payments of fees. These amounts are held in two accounts at KCB Kenya Bank Limited at Nakuru, being Current Account Number 1112977716 in the name of Ministry of Industrialization-Nakuru and Current Account Number 1296535665 in the name of Kenya Industrial Training Institute. The Third Party, KCB Bank Kenya Limited, has confirmed via the affidavit dated 21st April 2026 that it holds these accounts and that there are funds sufficient to pay the judgment debt. 12. The Decree Holder, through Sabaya and Associates Company Advocates, filed written submissions dated 13th May 2026. The Decree Holder submits that Kenya Industrial Training Institute operates Current Account Number 1296535665 with Kenya Commercial Bank, Nakuru Branch, in its own name. It also operates Current Account Number 1112977716 in the name of Ministry of Industrialization-Nakuru with the same bank. KITI entered into a contract with the Decree Holder in its own name and participated fully in the Magistrates Court, being Nakuru Chief Magistrate Court Case Number 254 of 2018, where a Consent Judgment was entered. KITI participated in High Court proceedings herein in its name, whereupon a Judicial Review Order of Mandamus was issued on 25th February 2021 compelling the Respondents to settle the Judgment debt within 45 days. The resultant Judgment, Decree, Certificate of Cost and Certificate of Order was issued against KITI. The Judgment and Decree have never been set aside. The decree has not been settled. The Decree Holder submits that now that there is proof that it has funds sufficient to pay the judgment debt, KITI is claiming that it is a Government department immune from execution. This, the Decree Holder contends, is unacceptable. On the issue of the Government Proceedings Act, the Decree Holder submits that the requisite statutory procedure under the Government Proceedings Act has been duly complied with. The Decree emanating from the lower court was extracted together with the Certificate of Costs and Certificate of Order against the Government, and both the Honourable Attorney General and KITI were properly served in accordance with the law. The said procedure was expressly confirmed at the Judicial Review stage and was scrupulously repeated following the delivery of judgment, leaving no procedural lacuna whatsoever. Tellingly, the Director-KITI neither alleges any violation of the prescribed procedure nor disputes service upon him of the Decree, Certificate of Costs, and Certificate of Order against the Government. Instead, he brazenly brandishes a non-existent immunity shield while offering neither proposal nor direction on how he will settle the outstanding judgment debt. The Decree Holder is left clutching an unenforceable judgment as interest compounds, a burden the innocent taxpayer will ultimately bear due to the Director's willful defiance. 13. The Decree Holder submits that the substratum of the law on garnishee proceedings is in Order 23 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules which provide that a court may, upon the ex parte application of a decree holder, and either before or after an oral examination of the judgment-debtor, and upon affidavit by the decree holder or his advocate stating that a decree has been issued and that it is still unsatisfied and to what amount, and that another person is indebted to the judgment-debtor and is within the jurisdiction, order that all debts other than the salaries or allowances coming within the provisions of Order 22, Rule 42 owing from such third persons, hereinafter called the garnishee, to the judgment-debtor shall be attached to answer the decree together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings. By the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the court to show cause why he should not pay to the decree-holder the debt due from him to the judgment debtor or so much thereof as maybe sufficient to satisfy the decree together with the costs aforesaid. 14. Order 23 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules further reads that if the garnishee does not dispute the debt due or claimed to be due from him to the judgment-debtor, or, if he 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; and the order absolute shall be in Form No. 17 or 18 of Appendix A, as the case may require. 15. The Decree Holder submits that the main issue for determination is whether Garnishee Order Absolute should be issued transferring the funds in KITI's bank accounts No 1112977716 and A/c No 1296535665 both at KCB Bank Kenya Ltd at Nakuru into an account in the name of the Decree holder. 16. The Decree Holder relies on the case of ***Ikon Prints Media Company Limited V Kenya National Highways Authority and 2 Others, 2015 eKLR***, where the Court held that ordinarily it is never and should never be the intention of any legislation to place parties in a position where the court’s judgment is never realized. Courts, as they say, do not and should not act in vain. Consequently, in reviewing or interpreting such statutory provisions, the construction must be liberal and lean towards the Constitutional principle that every person is equal before the eyes of the law and must be subjected to the rule of law. 17. The Decree Holder further relies on the case of ***Centurion Engineers and Builders Limited v Kenya Bureau of Standards; National Bank of Kenya Limited and 2 others (Garnishee***), Commercial Case 506 of 2012, where Gikonyo J noted that a prerequisite to garnishee proceedings is compliance with statutory dictates under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. After mentioning that the court is alive to the provisions of section 21(4) of the GPA to the effect that no execution or attachment process shall be issued enforcing payment by the Government except as provided in that section, he went ahead to issue Garnishee Order Absolute directing the National Bank of Kenya Limited to release shs. 1,455,562.50 from Kenya Bureau of Standard's bank account to satisfy the Judgement debt. 18. The Decree Holder submits that in this case, KITI has not tendered any evidence to establish that these specific accounts are accounts of the Consolidated Fund or otherwise designated as Government accounts immune from attachment by any court order. KITI's invocation of public interest and threats of student unrest is bare, speculative, and unsupported. Public interest cuts both ways. KITI's claim of operational paralysis as a basis to vacate the Garnishee Order Nisi is without merit. Any operational inconvenience it suffers is directly attributable to its own deliberate refusal to settle a decree that has been outstanding for over eight years. The funds held in the garnishee order nisi should be utilized to satisfy payment obligations arising directly from its own contractual relationship. 19. The Decree Holder concludes by submitting that there is merit in this court ordering that the KCB Bank funds be sent to the plaintiffs accounts via an order of garnishee order absolute. 20. The Judgment Debtor, through the replying affidavit of Mr. Wabwile Simiyu, Director of KITI, opposes the application. The Director depones that he is the Director of Kenya Industrial Training Institute, Nakuru, a department under the Ministry of Industrialization. KITI is not an independent institute but a department under the Ministry of Industrialization. He has been advised by the State Counsel in conduct of this matter that the orders being sought by the Applicants are contrary to the law. He has also been advised by the State Counsel that no execution or attachment can be issued as against the government or government accounts. Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, and in particular section 21(4), prohibits execution process against Government. Subsection (4) reads as follows: ***"Save as aforesaid, no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued out of any such court for enforcing payment by the Government of any such money or costs as aforesaid, and no person shall be individually liable under any order for the payment by the Government, or any Government department, or any officer of the Government as such, of any money or costs."*** 21. The application, he contents, therefore together with the interim orders issued on the 12th day of March 2026 are contrary to the law. The orders being sought are an abuse of the court process. The orders being sought are against public interest. The orders being sought are against the interest of the public as it has the effect of paralyzing the operations of the Institute with threats of strikes from students. The Director prays that the Application be dismissed. 22. During the oral submissions made on 11th October 2026, Miss Shirika for the Respondent further elaborated on the Judgment Debtor's position. She submitted that the garnishee order was issued in error because the two respondents are one and the same. She submitted that KITI is a bona fide State Department under the Ministry of Industrialisation, with the Principal Secretary as the head. She further submitted that the accounts are both Government Accounts and relied on Order 29 (2) c of the Civil Procedure Rules and Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules governing authorized attachment of Government Accounts. She also relied on Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act which prohibits attachment of Government Accounts, and submitted that the duly available remedy is to compel the accounting officer to make payments. She referred to the case of R. V CS Ministry of Tourism and Hotel Welfare. 27. The Third Party/Garnishee, KCB Bank Kenya Limited, through the Replying Affidavit of Beryl Chumo, the Garnishee's Manager, Service Quality and Compliance, KCB Nakuru Main Branch, sworn on 21st April 2026, confirms that the Judgment Debtor herein is a holder of Current Account Number 1112977716 and Current Account Number 1296535665 with the bank. The bank complied with the Order Nisi served upon it and restricted the account therein to the tune of the available balance of Kshs. 12,497,404. The liability of the Garnishee on account of the Judgment Debtor's indebtedness to the decree holder should only be to the extent of the aforesaid balance. The Garnishee's costs incidental to this Application should be deducted from the existing book balance before establishing the extent of the Garnishee Order against the Garnishee. The Garnishee's claim as against the amount held in the Judgment Debtor's account is for costs incidental to the proceedings herein estimated at Kenya Shillings Seventy Thousand only. The Garnishee is not opposed to the release of the money on issuance of the garnishee order absolute save that the said should be less incidental costs of Kshs. 70,000 of the proceedings herein. 28. Having carefully considered and examined the record, this Court identifies the following issues for determination; 1. ***Whether the procedural requirements under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act have been complied with.*** 2. ***Whether Section 21(4) of the Government Proceedings Act presents an absolute bar to the issuance of a Garnishee Order Absolute.*** 3. ***Whether the funds in the subject accounts are immune from attachment.*** 4. ***Whether the public interest arguments advanced by the Judgment Debtor have merit.*** 5. ***Whether the Garnishee Order Absolute should be issued.*** 6. ***What orders should this Court make?*** 30. Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, Cap 40 Laws of Kenya, provides the framework for satisfaction of orders against the Government. Subsection (1) provides that: ***"Where in any civil proceedings by or against the Government, or in proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which the Government is a party, any order (including an order for costs) is made by any court in favour of any person against the Government, or against a Government department, or against an officer of the Government as such, the proper officer of the court shall, on an application in that behalf made by or on behalf of that person at any time after the expiration of twenty-one days from the date of the order or, in case the order provides for the payment of costs and the costs require to be taxed, at any time after the costs have been taxed, whichever is the later, issue to that person a certificate in the prescribed form containing particulars of the order."*** 31. Subsection (2) provides that: ***"A copy of any certificate issued under this section may be served by the person in whose favour the order is made upon the Attorney-General."*** 32. Subsection (3) provides that: ***"If the order provides for the payment of any money by way of damages or otherwise, or of any costs, the certificate shall state the amount so payable, and the Accounting Officer for the Government department concerned shall, subject as hereinafter provided, pay to the person entitled or to his advocate the amount appearing by the certificate to be due to him together with interest, if any, lawfully due thereon."*** 33. Subsection (4) provides that: ***"Save as aforesaid, no execution or attachment or process in the nature thereof shall be issued out of any such court for enforcing payment by the Government of any such money or costs as aforesaid, and no person shall be individually liable under any order for the payment by the Government, or any Government department, or any officer of the Government as such, of any money or costs."*** 34. I have carefully perused the record and found that the Decree Holder has fully complied with the procedural requirements of Section 21(1) to (3) of the Government Proceedings Act. The Decree emanating from the lower court was extracted together with the Certificate of Costs and Certificate of Order against the Government. Both the Honourable Attorney General and KITI were properly served in accordance with the law. This compliance was confirmed by this Court in the Mandamus Order of 25th February 2021. The Director of KITI neither alleges any violation of the prescribed procedure nor disputes service upon him of the Decree, Certificate of Costs, and Certificate of Order against the Government. The only issue raised by KITI is the bar under Section 21(4). 35. I must interpret Section 21(4) in its proper context. The subsection must be read together with subsections (1) to (3) of the same section. The phrase "save as aforesaid" at the beginning of subsection (4) is significant. It means that the prohibition on execution or attachment applies except as provided in the preceding subsections. The preceding subsections provide a mechanism for enforcement of judgments against the Government through the issuance of a certificate and service upon the Attorney General and the Accounting Officer. The question then is whether the framework in subsections (1) to (3) is the exclusive mechanism for enforcement, or whether it is a prerequisite that, once complied with, opens the door for other enforcement mechanisms including garnishee proceedings. 37. This court is guided by the persuasive authority of the High Court in the case of ***Centurion Engineers and Builders Limited v Kenya Bureau of Standards; National Bank of Kenya Limited and 2 others (Garnishee) [2012] eKLR***. In that case, the court addressed the very issue now before this Court. The learned Judge acknowledged that the court is alive to the provisions of section 21(4) of the GPA to the effect that no execution or attachment process shall be issued enforcing payment by the Government except as provided in that section. Despite this acknowledgment, the court proceeded to issue a Garnishee Order Absolute directing the National Bank of Kenya Limited to release funds from Kenya Bureau of Standards' bank account to satisfy the judgment debt. The rationale was that compliance with the procedure under Section 21(1) to (3) was a prerequisite to enforcement, and once that prerequisite was met, the bar under Section 21(4) did not operate as an absolute shield. 38. This Court finds the reasoning in Centurion Engineers persuasive and applicable to the present case. The Court in that case recognized that the procedural framework under Section 21(1) to (3) is a prerequisite to enforcement. Once compliance with this framework is established, the bar under Section 21(4) should not be interpreted as an absolute shield against enforcement of valid judgments. To hold otherwise would render Section 21(1) to (3) meaningless and allow Government departments to evade lawful judgments with impunity. 39. This Court is also guided by the case of ***Ikon Prints Media Company Limited v Kenya National Highways Authority and 2 Others [2015] eKLR,*** where the Court held: ***"Ordinarily it is never and should never be the intention of any legislation to place parties in a position where the courts judgment is never realized. Courts, as they say, do not and should not act in vain. Consequently, in reviewing or interpreting such statutory provisions, the construction must be liberal and lean towards the Constitutional principle that every person including judicial persons are equal before the eyes of the law and must be subjected to the rule of law."*** 40. The 2nd Respondent contends that the accounts are Government Accounts and therefore immune from attachment. However, this Court notes several important factors. First, KITI has not tendered any evidence to establish that these specific accounts are accounts of the Consolidated Fund or otherwise designated as Government accounts immune from attachment by any court order. The mere assertion that KITI is a Government department is insufficient to establish that the funds in these specific accounts are immune. 41. Second, the evidence on record shows that KITI contracted with the Decree Holder in its own name. KITI participated in the Magistrates Court proceedings in its own name and a Consent Judgment was entered against it. KITI participated in the High Court proceedings in its own name and the Order of Mandamus was issued against it. The resultant Judgment, Decree, Certificate of Cost and Certificate of Order was issued against KITI. The Judgment and Decree have never been set aside. 42. Third, one of the accounts, being Current Account Number 1296535665, is in the name of Kenya Industrial Training Institute, not in the name of the Ministry or the Government. The other account, being Current Account Number 1112977716, is in the name of Ministry of Industrialization-Nakuru. While KITI may be a Government department, it has been operating and contracting as a separate entity. It cannot now seek to hide behind the shield of Section 21(4) to avoid payment of a valid judgment debt incurred in its own name. 44. The 2nd Respondent argues that the orders being sought are against public interest as they would paralyze the operations of the Institute with threats of strikes from students. This Court is not persuaded by this argument for several reasons. First, the argument is speculative. The 2nd Respondent has not provided any evidence of an imminent threat of student unrest. The assertion is bare and unsupported. Second, the judgment debt has been outstanding for over eight years. The 2nd Respondent has had ample time to make budgetary provisions for this payment but has chosen not to do so. Any operational inconvenience it now suffers is directly attributable to its own deliberate refusal to settle a decree that has been outstanding for over eight years.Third, public interest cuts both ways. The public has an interest in the rule of law and in ensuring that valid court judgments are enforced. As was stated in the Centurion Engineers case, the public interest includes the enforcement of court orders against Government entities. The public also has an interest in ensuring that Government departments honour their contractual obligations and pay for goods and services lawfully supplied. Fourth, the Decree Holder is an innocent party who supplied goods in good faith and has been denied payment for over eight years. He is 66 years old and in declining health. The public interest cannot be used as a shield to evade payment of a valid judgment debt while a senior citizen suffers. 49. The substratum of the law on garnishee proceedings is in Order 23 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which provides that: ***"A court may, upon the ex parte application of a decree holder, and either before or after an oral examination of the judgment-debtor, and upon affidavit by the decree holder or his advocate stating that a decree has been issued and that it is still unsatisfied and to what amount, and that another person is indebted to the judgment-debtor and is within the jurisdiction, order that all debts (other than the salaries or allowances coming within the provisions of Order 22, rule 42) owing from such third persons (hereinafter called the garnishee) to the judgment-debtor shall be attached to answer the decree together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings; and by the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the court to show cause why he should not pay to the decree-holder the debt due from him to the judgment debtor or so much thereof as maybe sufficient to satisfy the decree together with the costs aforesaid."*** 50. Order 23 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, further provides that: ***"If the garnishee does not dispute the debt due or claimed to be due from him to the judgment-debtor, or, if he 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; and the order absolute shall be in Form No. 17 or 18 of Appendix A, as the case may require."*** 51. In the present case, the Garnishee, KCB Bank Kenya Limited, has not disputed the debt. The bank has confirmed the existence of the accounts and the availability of funds. The bank has stated that it is not opposed to the release of the money on issuance of the garnishee order absolute, save that the said amount should be less incidental costs of Kshs. 70,000. The bank has complied with the Order Nisi and restricted the accounts. 52. This Court finds that all the prerequisites for the issuance of a Garnishee Order Absolute have been met. A valid decree exists. The decree remains unsatisfied. The Garnishee is indebted to the Judgment Debtor. The Garnishee has not disputed the debt. The procedural requirements under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act have been complied with. 53. This Court further notes the continued defiance by the 2nd Respondent of the Mandamus Order of 25th February 2021. That order was clear, unambiguous, and mandatory. Its continued defiance is a serious matter that undermines the rule of law and the authority of this Court. Courts exist to administer justice, and their orders must be obeyed. If this Court were to allow KITI to evade payment through reliance on Section 21(4), it would render the Mandamus Order meaningless and undermine the authority of the court. 63. Consequently, the notice of motion dated 10th March 2026 is found to be meritorious giving rise to issuance of the following orders: 1. ***The Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 12th March 2026 is hereby made ABSOLUTE.*** 2. ***The Third Party/Garnishee, KCB Bank Kenya Limited, Nakuru Branch, is hereby ORDERED to transfer the sum of Kshs. 12,497,404 (Twelve Million, Four Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Four Hundred and Four Shillings) from the Judgment Debtor's accounts, being:Account No. 1112977716 (Ministry of Industrialization-Nakuru) and Account No. 1296535665 (Kenya Industrial Training Institute) to the Decree Holder's account as may be specified by the Decree Holder.*** 3. ***The Third Party/Garnishee is authorized to deduct its incidental costs of Kshs. 70,000 (Seventy Thousand Shillings) from the said amount before remitting the balance to the Decree Holder.*** 4. ***The costs of this application are awarded to the Decree Holder/Ex-parte Applicant, to be borne by the 2nd Respondent/Judgment Debtor.*** Orders accordingly. **Dated, signed, and delivered at Nakuru this 30th day of July, 2026.** **J. K. SERGON** **JUDGE** **In the presence of**: Jamleck/Rutoh C/A Omae for Exparte Applicant Mogire holding brief for Ojou for Garnishee