https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/9726

Vishva Builders Ltd v Moi University & 9 others (Civil Suit 51 of 1999) [2026] KEHC 9726 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 9726 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Eldoret Civil Suit 51 of 1999 JM Chigiti, J July 3, 2026 Between Vishva Builders Limited Plaintiff and Moi University Defendant and National Bank Of Kenya Limited 1st Garnishee Co-Operative Bank Of Kenya Limited 2nd Garnishee Kenya Commercial Bank Limited 3rd Garnishee Standard Chartered Bank Limited 4th Garnishee Access Bank Limited 5th Garnishee Equity Bank Of Kenya Limited 6th Garnishee Absa Bank Of Kenya Limited 7th Garnishee and African Centre of Excellence II in Phytochemicals, Textlies and Renewable Energy (ACEEL-PTRE) ARICAN Cluster 1st Objector Motion Project Interact-Africa Cerm-ESa Moi University Digital Programme 2nd Objector Ruling 1.In Kenya Civil suits are ordinarily instituted by a Plaintiff and defended by a defendant. These are known as the principal parties. 2.The instant case was filed by the Vishva Builders Limited Against Moi University. 3.They are the main players in the litigation as a result of which they decide how the suit will be prosecuted within the framework and the dictates of The Civil Procedure or any other procedural Rules. 4.They have the prerogative when it comes to the need to amend, call witnesses to testify, produce documents so as to advance or defend their cases as the need arises. 5.In the instant suit other parties featured in their diverse capacities as Garnishees and objectors. 6.On 25.6.26 the Plaintiff/decree holder filed a Notice to Withdraw the suit. When the matter came up for mention on 30.6.26 counsel for the decree holder informed the court that the suit had been fully settled. 7.One of the Garnishees and the objectors opposed the withdrawal of the suit on the grounds that there were three pending applications by the 6th Garnishee dated 5.6.26 and two by the objectors dated 4.3.26 and 17.4.26 respectively. 8.This created the issue that falls for determination by this court. This ruling shall consequently determine whether to adopt the Notice to Withdraw the suit or not. 9.The role of an interested party, an objector or a Garnishee in a suit is not the same as that of the principal parties. In so holding I am guided by the principles that were enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Methodist Church in Kenya -v-Mohamed Fugicha & 3 others [2019] eKLR. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v. Mumo Matemu & 5 others, Petition No. 12 of 2013 [2014] eKLR defines ‘interested party’ as ‘A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter (paragraph 42 page 7). 10.The Mutunga Rules define ‘interested party’ as:“a person or entity that has an identifiable stake or legal interest or duty in the proceedings before the court but is not a party to the proceedings or may not be directly involved in the litigation” (paragraph 41page 7) 11.In the instant suit, the court is of the view that the objectors and the garnishees do not have the same authority over the direction that the suit should go. 12.Where the principal parties intend to mark the suit as settled or withdrawn as is the case here that leaves the objector and The Garnishee with nothing to peg their case on. 12.The Garnishee and the objector just like an interested party cannot bar nor stop the principal parties from expressing their desire or resolve the dispute as signified in the Plaintiff’s Notice to withdrawal the suit. 12.An objector, a Garnishee or an interested party may not frame its own fresh issues or introduce new issues for determination by the Court outside the realm of the principal parties case. 12.Where the principal party has lost interest in the suit or where the decretal sum is settled like is the case here, then the garnishee and or the objectors no longer have any identifiable, stake or legal business with a suit. 12.The court notes that a garnishee or an objector believes they have an interest in the cause of action reserve and have the liberty to file an independent suit to advance their cause so long as it is within the statutory timelines under the Limitation of Actions Act. 12.In any event, Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2020 provides for the withdrawal of civil suits by a plaintiff. Determination: 12.The Plaintiff/Decree holder herein cannot be barred from withdrawing the suit.Order:1.The objection to the withdrawal of the suit is declined.2.The Notice to withdraw the entire suit against the Defendant dated 25.6.26 is herebyadopted as an order of the court.3.This file is marked as settled and consequently the file is closed with each party bearing their costs. DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED ON THIS 3RDDAY OF JULY 2026 AT ELDORET HIGH COURT.………………………………J. M. CHIGITI (SC)JUDGE