REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
PETITION NO. E203 OF 2024
(Before Hon. Justice Dr. Jacob Gakeri)
AMOS JUMA SIKUKU………..…………………………..…. PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
KENYA NATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION (KNTC)……………………………………………….…………. RESPONDENT
RULING
Before the court for determination is the Decree holders’ Notice of Motion dated 2 nd June 2026 filed under Certificate of Urgent seeking orders that:
1. Spent.
2. This Honurable court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Nisi against the 1 st Garnishee for Account Nos 0701788990 and 2046098318 both held at Lunga Lunga Branch, against the 2 nd Garnishee for Account Nos.01136028861700 and 01136028861701 both held at the Industrial Area Branch, and the 3 rd Garnishee for Account No. 01003002924900, ordering all monies deposited, lying or being held in deposit by the Garnishees to the credit of the judgment debtor be attacked to answer to the decree issued on 7 th May 2026, and certificate of costs issued on 29 th January 2026, for a total amount Kshs.8,681,751.
3. The Garnishees do appear before this court on an appointed dated and time to show cause why they should not pay the decree holder the sum of Kshs.8,681,751 being the decretal sum and taxed costs.
4. Upon inter partes hearing of this Application, this Honourable court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Absolute as is enough to satisfy the decretal and taxed amount of Kshs.8,681,751.
5. The decretal and taxed sum herein be remitted into the Applicants Bank Account through its advocates, particulars whereof are given hereunder: Bryan Khaemba, Kamau Kamau & Co. Advocates, Co-operative Bank, Account No. 01101845188001 Greenhouse Branch forthwith and not later than 24 hours from the date of the issuance of the Garnishee Order Absolute.
6. The costs of this application be borne by the Respondent.
The Notice of Motion is expressed under Section 1A, 1B, 3A 44 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 23 and Order 50 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is based on the grounds set out on its face and the Supporting Affidavit of Amos Juma Sikuku that he was awarded the sum of Kshs.3,000,000 in damages for violation of his constitutional rights together with withheld salary and benefits, costs and interest and the total decretal sum was Kshs.8,406,476 and costs were taxed at Kshs.275,275 and service was effected on 25 th May 2026 but no payment was made and the orders are merited.
1 st Garnishees Response
Vide a Replying Affidavit sworn on 16 th June 2026, Mr. Simon Mwangi the Garnishees Legal Officer deponed that the Judgment Debtor maintained two accounts with the 1 st Garnishee namely Account No. 0701788990 and Account No. 2046098318 and while the former had a credit balance of Kshs.271,806.40, the latter had a credit balance of Kshs.189,440.10 thus the account had insufficient funds to satisfy the entire decretal sum of Kshs.8,681,751 and could only satisfy it to the extent of Kshs.461,246.50 which had been frozen by dint of the Garnishee Order nisi.
The affiant further deponed that the Garnishee was entitled to Kshs.50,000.00 as costs to be deducted from the two accounts.
3 rd Garnishee’s Response
By a Replying Affidavit sworn on 9 th July, 2026, Mary Anne Kimani, the Garnishee’s Branch Operation Manager National Bank of Kenya Ltd Harambee Avenue Branch deponed that the Judgment Debtor held Account No. 7700064474 at the Branch and the book balance as at 9 th June 2026 was Kshs.3,734.57 and the Bank could not satisfy the decretal sum and it was fair that the 3 rd Garnishee be discharged from the Order nisi issued on 3 rd June 2026. The affiant added that the 3 rd Garnishee was praying for Kshs.50,000 as costs.
1 st Garnishee’s further Affidavit
Mr Simon Mwangi deponed that as at 13 th July 2026 Account No. 0701788990 had a credit balance of Kshs.1,591506.90 while Account No. 2046098318 had a credit balance of Kshs.190,707.10, total Kshs.1,782,214 frozen pursuant to the Garnishee Order nisi.
2 nd Garnishee’s Response
Mr. Kichwen for the 2 nd Garnishee informed the Court that the Garnishees’ response was similar to the earlier Affidavit sworn on 11 th May 2026 that Account No. 0113602886170 in the name of the Judgment Debtor had a book balance of Kshs.71,717,519.20
Judgment Debtor’s Response
Lucy Anagwe, the Judgment Debtor’s Managing Director deponed that the Garnishee Order nisi was granted on 3 rd June 2026. That the amount in the 2 nd Garnishees account belonged to the National Treasury as a Grant for rice farmers in Mwea, Bura and Nyanza and thus unavailable for Garnishment and the money in the 1 st Garnishees Bank account was meant for salaries for employees and statutory deductions and the Garnishee Order nisi had paralyzed the Judgment Debtors mandate and public funds would be lost if the Order was made absolute.
That the order issued on 3 rd June 2026 be varied renewed on set aside.
By a further affidavit sworn on 22 nd June 2026, the Decree-holder deponed that the funds in the account belonged to the Judgment Debtor and no objection proceedings had been commenced and it had been commenced and it had not adduced its payroll to show that the monies was meant for salary and statutory deductions and the issue was res judicata and grants were financial and not repayable and no evidence had been provided to prove that the amount did not belong to it.
Judgment Debtors submissions
Counsel for the Respondent provided a historical account of the matter and the genesis of monies in the 2 nd Garnishee Bank account.
As to whether monies in the 2 nd Garnishees Account No. 01136028861701 constituted a debt due and accruing to the Judgment Debtor capable of attachment, counsel relied on the decision in Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd v Kepha Nyabera & 191 others (2013) eKLR to urge that the Decree-Holders right to funds in an account were limited to the rights the Judgment Debtor had over the funds to urge that Account No. 0113602886170 was nominated by the Judgment Debtor for purposes of paying rice farmers from grants by the National Treasury to cushion them.
Reliance was further placed on the decisions in Kennedy Wainaina Ngenga v County Government of Nairobi: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd Garnishee (2019) eKLR, for the proposition that in the context of Garnishee proceedings against public bodies, a garnishee could in substance be holding public funds in a fiduciary capacity where funds are shown to be designated for another specific purpose, to urge that since the money had been designated for a defined purpose, it was different from an ordinary debt.
Counsel submitted that the Judgment Debtor could not divert the grant for rice farmers to satisfy its own private judgment debt without breaching its obligation to rice-co-operatives.
That Order 23 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules envisaged such a situation and prescribes a trial for such a claim. Since the payees of the cash were strangers to the suit and would be prejudice by Orders of the court.
Counsel urged that procedural fairness was a essential in all stages of execution as held in Cecilio Murango Mwenda T/A Murango Mwenda & Co. Advocates v Isiolo County Government & Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd (Garnishee) (2017) eKLR, to urge that third, parties claiming the funds in question ought to be heard.
Counsel urged that the rice farmers identified by the Local Purchase Orders were entitled to notice and hearing. Counsel further urged the court not to confirm the Garnishee order nisi as absolute over Account No. 01136028861701 and its sister account.
Other parties opted not to file submission.
The court notes that this is the Decree-Holders second Notice of Motion on Garnishment of the Judgment Debtors Bank accounts at ABSA Bank and Co-operative Bank of Kenya. The Notice of Motion date3d 8 th May 2026 was disallowed for want of service of the Decree on the Judgment Debtor, vide Ruling delivered on 25 th May 2026.
The only issue for determination is whether the funds in the Judgment Debtor’s account at the Co-operative Bank of Kenya, Industrial Area Branch are liable for attachment in satisfaction of the Judgment Debtors obligation to the Decree-holder.
Counsels and the parties have adopted contrasting positions as is typical in contested issues. While the Judgment-Debtor maintains that the funds in the account belonged to the National Treasury and was a grant meant to pay rice farmers, the Decree-Holder contended that no evidence had been placed before the court to prove that the funds belonged to 3 rd parties.
The Judgment-Debtor produced copies of Local Purchase Orders dated April and July 2026 in the names of rice farmers co-operative societies self-help groups, Farmers CBO, Rive Growers Multipurpose Co-operative for the purchase of rice, all had been approved for payment by the five(5) officers of the Judgment -Debtor including the Managing Director. The Co-operative Societies included the famous Mwea Rice Growers Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Athi Delta Farmers Co-operative, Purber Rice farmers Co-operative Society and Tekowa Kanyakla Self-Help Group.
In addition, the Judgment-Debtor provided a receipt dated 11 th August 2025 evidencing receipt by EFT of Kshs.200,000,000 from the State Department of Trade for purposes of the RICE FUND.
Receipt was acknowledged by Anjelyne and Peter Wachira.
The receipt of funds was acknowledged by a letter dated 12 th August 2025 by the Managing Director of the Judgment Debtor to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry State Department for Trade.
As early as 15 th July, 2025, the Principal Secretary, State Department for Trade had informed the Judgment Debtor’s Managing Director its budgetary allocation of Kshs.1,776,590.00 inclusive of Kshs.200,000,000 by the Government of Kenya the balance being Appropriations in Aid.
Similarly, capital grants was Kshs.30,000,000 total Kshs.1,806,590.
Documentary evidence on record revealed that vide letter 11 th July 2025 the Managing Director of the Judgment Debtor requested the Principal Secretary State Department for Trade to disburse Kshs.200,000,000 to facilitate Mop up of 5,000 MT of rice from farmers to Bank Account Number 01136028861701 and the amount was forwarded on 11 th August 2025 as adverted to elsewhere in this ruling.
Noteworthy, this is the Account held by the Judgment Debtor at the 2 nd Garnishee’s Bank, Industrial Area, Branch and the only account with sufficient funds to satisfy the amount due to the Decree-Holder.
The Judgment Debtor’s case is that the funds in its account belongs to rive farmers and was thus holding it for purposes of payment of farmers. The it was part of public funds and not attachable.
In Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd v Kepha Nyabera & another (Supra), cited by the Judgment Debtor’s counsel, the Court of Appeal held inter alia;
“A judgment creditor has no greater rights in the judgment debtor’s assets held by the Garnishee than the judgment -debtor does; the 1 st respondent had no greater right than the judgment debtor (2 nd Respondent had to the funds held by the appellant bank. The rights of the 1 st Respondent over the funds held by the appellant bank are co-extensive and limited to the rights that the judgment-debtor had over the funds…”
Similarly, in Kenya Electricity Transmission Co Ltd v Spedag Interfreight Kenya Ltd & 4 others (2021) KECA 542 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held:
“The procedure and objective of garnishee proceedings was explained by the East African Court of Appeal in Jagat Singh Bains v Halimabibi (1957) EA 13 where it was held that for purposes of garnishee nisi, an affidavit based on information and belief is sufficient provided the sources of information of grounds of belief are stated: that the belief of the deponent does not have to be justified in fact, and it is sufficient that it be reasonable and bona fide that the court must be satisfied, before it makes the order absolute of the existence of a debt in praesenti: that a debt which the judgment debtor could sue for if he chose, and an unliquidated claim for damages cannot save perhaps in an exceptional case be attached; and that garnishee proceedings being inquisitorial, the purpose is to find out whether the garnishee is indebted to the judgment debtor, and not merely whether he owes a particular debt.
At this point, we must pause and emphasize that the garnishee is that third pay who is indebted to the judgment debtor and is being called upon to settle the judgment debtor’s liability to the decree holder to the extent of his liability to the judgment debtor.
..In garnishee proceedings the decree holder steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor and demands that payment due from the garnishee to be judgment debtor be paid to the decree holder or judgment creditor instead.”
Applying the foregoing propositions to the facts of the instant suit, it is clear that from the documentary evidence on record, the Judgment Debtor has shown on a preponderance of probabilities that the amount in Account No. 01136028861701 was disbursed by the State Department for Trade for purposes of paying rice farmers as opposed to the ordinary budgetary allocation for the Judgment-Debtor’s use. The amount is infact held on behalf of the National Treasury in trust for the rice farmers and cannot therefore be categorized as a debt owned by the 2 nd Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor for purposes of garnishment.
Significantly, the Judgment Debtor’s Managing Director also deponed that the Garnishee Order nisi granted on 3 rd June 2026 had disrupted the Judgment Debtors operations and could threaten livelihoods of thousands of rice farmer’s who were innocent third parties and a Garnishee Order absolute would occasion irreversible miscarriage of justice.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the monies in the 2 nd Garnishees Bank Account No.0116028861701 is not attachable and the Garnishee Order nisi in respect of that Account is unsustainable.
The Garnishee Order nisi issued on 3 rd June 2026 on all other accounts held by the Judgment Debtor are confirmed as Garnishee Order Absolute.
The Judgment Debtor tendered no lota of evidence to prove that monies in the other accounts was held in trust or was exclusively for employee salaries, allowances and statutory deductions.
This was easily demonstrable by documentary evidence at the Judgment-Debtors disposal.
In conclusion, the Decree-Holders Notice of Motion dated 2 nd June 2026 is partially successful to the extent that:
(a) The Garnishee Order nisi in respect of bank accounts other than Account No.01136028861701 is made Garnishee Order absolute.
(b) The Judgment Debtor shall pay the Garnishees the sum of Kshs.20,000 each as costs.
(c) Costs of this application at ½ scale.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
ORDER
In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15 th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21 st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules , which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
ELRC NAIROBI – E203 OF 20242 OF 12
IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR RELATIONS COURT
AT NAIROBI
PETITION NO. E203 OF 2024
(Before Hon. Justice Dr. Jacob Gakeri)
AMOS JUMA SIKUKU………..…………………………..…. PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
KENYA NATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION (KNTC)……………………………………………….…………. RESPONDENT
RULING
Before the court for determination is the Decree holders’ Notice of Motion dated 2 nd June 2026 filed under Certificate of Urgent seeking orders that:
1. Spent.
2. This Honurable court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Nisi against the 1 st Garnishee for Account Nos 0701788990 and 2046098318 both held at Lunga Lunga Branch, against the 2 nd Garnishee for Account Nos.01136028861700 and 01136028861701 both held at the Industrial Area Branch, and the 3 rd Garnishee for Account No. 01003002924900, ordering all monies deposited, lying or being held in deposit by the Garnishees to the credit of the judgment debtor be attacked to answer to the decree issued on 7 th May 2026, and certificate of costs issued on 29 th January 2026, for a total amount Kshs.8,681,751.
3. The Garnishees do appear before this court on an appointed dated and time to show cause why they should not pay the decree holder the sum of Kshs.8,681,751 being the decretal sum and taxed costs.
4. Upon inter partes hearing of this Application, this Honourable court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Absolute as is enough to satisfy the decretal and taxed amount of Kshs.8,681,751.
5. The decretal and taxed sum herein be remitted into the Applicants Bank Account through its advocates, particulars whereof are given hereunder: Bryan Khaemba, Kamau Kamau & Co. Advocates, Co-operative Bank, Account No. 01101845188001 Greenhouse Branch forthwith and not later than 24 hours from the date of the issuance of the Garnishee Order Absolute.
6. The costs of this application be borne by the Respondent.
The Notice of Motion is expressed under Section 1A, 1B, 3A 44 and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 23 and Order 50 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and is based on the grounds set out on its face and the Supporting Affidavit of Amos Juma Sikuku that he was awarded the sum of Kshs.3,000,000 in damages for violation of his constitutional rights together with withheld salary and benefits, costs and interest and the total decretal sum was Kshs.8,406,476 and costs were taxed at Kshs.275,275 and service was effected on 25 th May 2026 but no payment was made and the orders are merited.
1 st Garnishees Response
Vide a Replying Affidavit sworn on 16 th June 2026, Mr. Simon Mwangi the Garnishees Legal Officer deponed that the Judgment Debtor maintained two accounts with the 1 st Garnishee namely Account No. 0701788990 and Account No. 2046098318 and while the former had a credit balance of Kshs.271,806.40, the latter had a credit balance of Kshs.189,440.10 thus the account had insufficient funds to satisfy the entire decretal sum of Kshs.8,681,751 and could only satisfy it to the extent of Kshs.461,246.50 which had been frozen by dint of the Garnishee Order nisi.
The affiant further deponed that the Garnishee was entitled to Kshs.50,000.00 as costs to be deducted from the two accounts.
3 rd Garnishee’s Response
By a Replying Affidavit sworn on 9 th July, 2026, Mary Anne Kimani, the Garnishee’s Branch Operation Manager National Bank of Kenya Ltd Harambee Avenue Branch deponed that the Judgment Debtor held Account No. 7700064474 at the Branch and the book balance as at 9 th June 2026 was Kshs.3,734.57 and the Bank could not satisfy the decretal sum and it was fair that the 3 rd Garnishee be discharged from the Order nisi issued on 3 rd June 2026. The affiant added that the 3 rd Garnishee was praying for Kshs.50,000 as costs.
1 st Garnishee’s further Affidavit
Mr Simon Mwangi deponed that as at 13 th July 2026 Account No. 0701788990 had a credit balance of Kshs.1,591506.90 while Account No. 2046098318 had a credit balance of Kshs.190,707.10, total Kshs.1,782,214 frozen pursuant to the Garnishee Order nisi.
2 nd Garnishee’s Response
Mr. Kichwen for the 2 nd Garnishee informed the Court that the Garnishees’ response was similar to the earlier Affidavit sworn on 11 th May 2026 that Account No. 0113602886170 in the name of the Judgment Debtor had a book balance of Kshs.71,717,519.20
Judgment Debtor’s Response
Lucy Anagwe, the Judgment Debtor’s Managing Director deponed that the Garnishee Order nisi was granted on 3 rd June 2026. That the amount in the 2 nd Garnishees account belonged to the National Treasury as a Grant for rice farmers in Mwea, Bura and Nyanza and thus unavailable for Garnishment and the money in the 1 st Garnishees Bank account was meant for salaries for employees and statutory deductions and the Garnishee Order nisi had paralyzed the Judgment Debtors mandate and public funds would be lost if the Order was made absolute.
That the order issued on 3 rd June 2026 be varied renewed on set aside.
By a further affidavit sworn on 22 nd June 2026, the Decree-holder deponed that the funds in the account belonged to the Judgment Debtor and no objection proceedings had been commenced and it had been commenced and it had not adduced its payroll to show that the monies was meant for salary and statutory deductions and the issue was res judicata and grants were financial and not repayable and no evidence had been provided to prove that the amount did not belong to it.
Judgment Debtors submissions
Counsel for the Respondent provided a historical account of the matter and the genesis of monies in the 2 nd Garnishee Bank account.
As to whether monies in the 2 nd Garnishees Account No. 01136028861701 constituted a debt due and accruing to the Judgment Debtor capable of attachment, counsel relied on the decision in Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd v Kepha Nyabera & 191 others (2013) eKLR to urge that the Decree-Holders right to funds in an account were limited to the rights the Judgment Debtor had over the funds to urge that Account No. 0113602886170 was nominated by the Judgment Debtor for purposes of paying rice farmers from grants by the National Treasury to cushion them.
Reliance was further placed on the decisions in Kennedy Wainaina Ngenga v County Government of Nairobi: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd Garnishee (2019) eKLR, for the proposition that in the context of Garnishee proceedings against public bodies, a garnishee could in substance be holding public funds in a fiduciary capacity where funds are shown to be designated for another specific purpose, to urge that since the money had been designated for a defined purpose, it was different from an ordinary debt.
Counsel submitted that the Judgment Debtor could not divert the grant for rice farmers to satisfy its own private judgment debt without breaching its obligation to rice-co-operatives.
That Order 23 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules envisaged such a situation and prescribes a trial for such a claim. Since the payees of the cash were strangers to the suit and would be prejudice by Orders of the court.
Counsel urged that procedural fairness was a essential in all stages of execution as held in Cecilio Murango Mwenda T/A Murango Mwenda & Co. Advocates v Isiolo County Government & Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd (Garnishee) (2017) eKLR, to urge that third, parties claiming the funds in question ought to be heard.
Counsel urged that the rice farmers identified by the Local Purchase Orders were entitled to notice and hearing. Counsel further urged the court not to confirm the Garnishee order nisi as absolute over Account No. 01136028861701 and its sister account.
Other parties opted not to file submission.
The court notes that this is the Decree-Holders second Notice of Motion on Garnishment of the Judgment Debtors Bank accounts at ABSA Bank and Co-operative Bank of Kenya. The Notice of Motion date3d 8 th May 2026 was disallowed for want of service of the Decree on the Judgment Debtor, vide Ruling delivered on 25 th May 2026.
The only issue for determination is whether the funds in the Judgment Debtor’s account at the Co-operative Bank of Kenya, Industrial Area Branch are liable for attachment in satisfaction of the Judgment Debtors obligation to the Decree-holder.
Counsels and the parties have adopted contrasting positions as is typical in contested issues. While the Judgment-Debtor maintains that the funds in the account belonged to the National Treasury and was a grant meant to pay rice farmers, the Decree-Holder contended that no evidence had been placed before the court to prove that the funds belonged to 3 rd parties.
The Judgment-Debtor produced copies of Local Purchase Orders dated April and July 2026 in the names of rice farmers co-operative societies self-help groups, Farmers CBO, Rive Growers Multipurpose Co-operative for the purchase of rice, all had been approved for payment by the five(5) officers of the Judgment -Debtor including the Managing Director. The Co-operative Societies included the famous Mwea Rice Growers Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Athi Delta Farmers Co-operative, Purber Rice farmers Co-operative Society and Tekowa Kanyakla Self-Help Group.
In addition, the Judgment-Debtor provided a receipt dated 11 th August 2025 evidencing receipt by EFT of Kshs.200,000,000 from the State Department of Trade for purposes of the RICE FUND.
Receipt was acknowledged by Anjelyne and Peter Wachira.
The receipt of funds was acknowledged by a letter dated 12 th August 2025 by the Managing Director of the Judgment Debtor to the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry State Department for Trade.
As early as 15 th July, 2025, the Principal Secretary, State Department for Trade had informed the Judgment Debtor’s Managing Director its budgetary allocation of Kshs.1,776,590.00 inclusive of Kshs.200,000,000 by the Government of Kenya the balance being Appropriations in Aid.
Similarly, capital grants was Kshs.30,000,000 total Kshs.1,806,590.
Documentary evidence on record revealed that vide letter 11 th July 2025 the Managing Director of the Judgment Debtor requested the Principal Secretary State Department for Trade to disburse Kshs.200,000,000 to facilitate Mop up of 5,000 MT of rice from farmers to Bank Account Number 01136028861701 and the amount was forwarded on 11 th August 2025 as adverted to elsewhere in this ruling.
Noteworthy, this is the Account held by the Judgment Debtor at the 2 nd Garnishee’s Bank, Industrial Area, Branch and the only account with sufficient funds to satisfy the amount due to the Decree-Holder.
The Judgment Debtor’s case is that the funds in its account belongs to rive farmers and was thus holding it for purposes of payment of farmers. The it was part of public funds and not attachable.
In Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd v Kepha Nyabera & another (Supra), cited by the Judgment Debtor’s counsel, the Court of Appeal held inter alia;
“A judgment creditor has no greater rights in the judgment debtor’s assets held by the Garnishee than the judgment -debtor does; the 1 st respondent had no greater right than the judgment debtor (2 nd Respondent had to the funds held by the appellant bank. The rights of the 1 st Respondent over the funds held by the appellant bank are co-extensive and limited to the rights that the judgment-debtor had over the funds…”
Similarly, in Kenya Electricity Transmission Co Ltd v Spedag Interfreight Kenya Ltd & 4 others (2021) KECA 542 (KLR), the Court of Appeal held:
“The procedure and objective of garnishee proceedings was explained by the East African Court of Appeal in Jagat Singh Bains v Halimabibi (1957) EA 13 where it was held that for purposes of garnishee nisi, an affidavit based on information and belief is sufficient provided the sources of information of grounds of belief are stated: that the belief of the deponent does not have to be justified in fact, and it is sufficient that it be reasonable and bona fide that the court must be satisfied, before it makes the order absolute of the existence of a debt in praesenti: that a debt which the judgment debtor could sue for if he chose, and an unliquidated claim for damages cannot save perhaps in an exceptional case be attached; and that garnishee proceedings being inquisitorial, the purpose is to find out whether the garnishee is indebted to the judgment debtor, and not merely whether he owes a particular debt.
At this point, we must pause and emphasize that the garnishee is that third pay who is indebted to the judgment debtor and is being called upon to settle the judgment debtor’s liability to the decree holder to the extent of his liability to the judgment debtor.
..In garnishee proceedings the decree holder steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor and demands that payment due from the garnishee to be judgment debtor be paid to the decree holder or judgment creditor instead.”
Applying the foregoing propositions to the facts of the instant suit, it is clear that from the documentary evidence on record, the Judgment Debtor has shown on a preponderance of probabilities that the amount in Account No. 01136028861701 was disbursed by the State Department for Trade for purposes of paying rice farmers as opposed to the ordinary budgetary allocation for the Judgment-Debtor’s use. The amount is infact held on behalf of the National Treasury in trust for the rice farmers and cannot therefore be categorized as a debt owned by the 2 nd Garnishee to the Judgment Debtor for purposes of garnishment.
Significantly, the Judgment Debtor’s Managing Director also deponed that the Garnishee Order nisi granted on 3 rd June 2026 had disrupted the Judgment Debtors operations and could threaten livelihoods of thousands of rice farmer’s who were innocent third parties and a Garnishee Order absolute would occasion irreversible miscarriage of justice.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the monies in the 2 nd Garnishees Bank Account No.0116028861701 is not attachable and the Garnishee Order nisi in respect of that Account is unsustainable.
The Garnishee Order nisi issued on 3 rd June 2026 on all other accounts held by the Judgment Debtor are confirmed as Garnishee Order Absolute.
The Judgment Debtor tendered no lota of evidence to prove that monies in the other accounts was held in trust or was exclusively for employee salaries, allowances and statutory deductions.
This was easily demonstrable by documentary evidence at the Judgment-Debtors disposal.
In conclusion, the Decree-Holders Notice of Motion dated 2 nd June 2026 is partially successful to the extent that:
(a) The Garnishee Order nisi in respect of bank accounts other than Account No.01136028861701 is made Garnishee Order absolute.
(b) The Judgment Debtor shall pay the Garnishees the sum of Kshs.20,000 each as costs.
(c) Costs of this application at ½ scale.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
ORDER
In view of the declaration of measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15 th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21 st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules , which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open court. In permitting this course, this court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this court the duty of the court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.
DR. JACOB GAKERI
JUDGE
ELRC NAIROBI – E203 OF 20242 OF 12