[2010] KEHC 4149 (KLR)
The court declined to grant the orders sought for sale of the attached property because the evidence provided, specifically the Certificate of Official Search, did not show that a prohibitory order had been registered against the suit property as required by law. The absence of this crucial procedural step meant the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 4149 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Wish Life Investments Limited; Defendant: Lucy Wangari Akweyu; Defendant: Ibrahim Mwangi; Defendant: Samson W. Ndegwa t/a S.W. Ndegwa & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Zack-Mark Enterprises
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 301 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Sale of Attached Property
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- AT Sitati
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Decree, Attachment of Property, Sale of Attached Property, Prohibitory Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wish Life Investments Limited
Plaintiff
Lucy Wangari Akweyu
Defendant
Ibrahim Mwangi
Defendant
Samson W. Ndegwa t/a S.W. Ndegwa & Co. Advocates
Defendant
Zack-Mark Enterprises
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Sale of Attached Property
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should order the sale of the judgment debtor's land to satisfy the decretal sum.
- 2 Whether the court should settle the terms of sale for the attached property.
- 3 Whether a valid prohibitory order has been registered against the suit property as required for sale.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined to grant the orders sought for sale of the attached property because the evidence provided, specifically the Certificate of Official Search, did not show that a prohibitory order had been registered against the suit property as required by law. The absence of this crucial procedural step meant the application was premature and could not be allowed. The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules regarding attachment and sale of immovable property, particularly the requirement for registration of a prohibitory order to protect the interests of all parties and ensure due process.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 6/06/2005 is struck out with no order as to costs.
- The applicant is at liberty to file a similar application seeking the same orders within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL SUIT 301 OF 2004
WISH LIFE INVESTMENTS LIMITED………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LUCY WANGARI AKWEYU………………………………1ST DEFENDANT
IBRAHIM MWANGI………………………………………..2ND DEFENDANT
(As the administrators and legal representative of the estate of
PURITY WANJIKU MWANGI)
SAMSON W. NDEGWA T/A
S.W. NDEGWA & CO. ADVOCATES……………………..3RD DEFENDANT
ZACK-MARK ENTERPRISES……………………………..4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The application before court is the Notice of Motion dated 6/06/2005. The same is brought under Order XXI Rules 59, 61(1) and Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application seeks orders:-
1. That this Honourable Court be pleased to make an order for sale of the judgment debtor’s land known as LR No. KAJIADO/KITENGELA/5477.
2. That this Honourable Court be pleased to settle terms of sale of the judgment debtor’s land known as LR No. KAJIADO/KITENGELA/5477 (the suit land).
3. THAT the costs of this application be paid by the Plaintiff/Judgment Debtor.
2. The application is premised on grounds that the judgment/debtor’s land has been attached to answer the decree herein and it is in the interest of justice that it be sold to realize the decretal sum and secondly that it is in the interests of justice that this Honourable Court settles the terms of sale of the judgment debtor’s land to facilitate its sale expeditiously so that the decree holder can enjoy the fruits of his decree.
3. The application is also supported by an affidavit dated 6/06/2005 and sworn by Samson Wambugu Ndegwa, the 3rd Defendant/Decree Holder. The deponent says that the Plaintiff’s suit was struck out on 21/09/2004 with costs to the deponent. He says that those costs were taxed at Kshs.246,025/=. The deponent also says that he applied to have the suit land herein attached which application was granted and that thereafter, this Honourable Court issued a prohibitory order which order has since been registered at the lands office in Kajiado. Although the deponent says that a prohibitory order has been registered against the suit land, the Certificate of Official Search dated 25/02/2005 annexed to the supporting affidavit as “SWN1” does not show such an inhibition on the title.
4. There is also an amended statement of Particulars dated 7/08/2007 filed along with the application showing the property to be sold as being the suit property in satisfaction of the decretal sum and all costs payable to the 3rd Defendant in HCCC No. 301 of 2004 at Nairobi, with the balance of the purchase price to be paid to the judgment debtor. The total amount payable under the decree is Kshs.249,125/=. The auctioneer who has been appointed to sell the property is M/s Zack-Mark Enterprises after the sale is advertised twice in the Daily Nation at a cost of Kshs.30,000/=.
5. The application was duly served upon the Plaintiff’s advocates on the 22/10/2009 for hearing on 10/11/2009. The Plaintiff did not respond to the Applicant’s application. On the 10/11/2009, Mr. Njeru Gichobi advocate urged the court to allow the application as prayed. Order XXI Rule 59 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides –
“59. Any court executing a decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, shall or such portion thereof, as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree, be sold and that the proceeds of such sale, or a sufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same.”
6. I have now considered the above provision and the application as filed. I have also considered the application itself and the annextures to the affidavit in support. I would have allowed the application were it not for the fact that the Certificate of Search dated 25/02/2005 which is attached to the supporting affidavit as proof that a prohibitory order has been issued against the suit property does not show such detail.
7. In the circumstances, the application dated 6/06/2005 is struck out with no order as to costs. The Applicant is at liberty to file similar application seeking the same orders within 30 days from the date of this ruling.
It is so ordered.
Delivered and Dated at Nairobi this 23rd day of February, 2010.
R.N. SITATI
JUDGE
Delivered in the presence of:-
No appearance for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr. Gaita (present) for the 3rd Defendant/Applicant
Weche – court clerk