[1] Before the Court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 4 th November 2025. It was filed by the ex parte applicant, Benard Odhiambo Odoyo (hereinafter, “the applicant”) under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 of the Laws of Kenya and Order 23 Rules 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 as well as Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant prayed for the following orders:
[a] Spent
[b] The Court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Nisi against KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the Garnishee herein, in respect of its Moi Avenue Branch Account Number 1107…712, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the respondent/judgment debtor be attached to settle and/or satisfy the judgment debt of Kshs. 5,000,000/= being the amount in respect of which judgment was entered in favour of the applicants together with Costs. (Spent)
[c] That KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the said Garnishees herein, do attend Court to show cause why it should not pay the applicants the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= being the decretal amount from the funds in the accounts operated by the judgment debtor in the Garnishee's various branches. (Spent)
[d] That the Court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Absolute against KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the Garnishee herein, in respect of its Moi Avenue Branch Account Number 1107…712, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the 1 st respondent be attached to settle and/or satisfy the decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= and costs in respect of which judgment was entered herein in favour of the applicants.
[e] That the costs of the application be borne by the respondent.
[2] The application was supported by the affidavit sworn on 4 th November 2025 by the applicant, Benard Odhiambo Odoyo , in which he averred that this Court entered judgment in his favour on the 22 nd May 2025 as against the respondents for the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= together with costs, and that the decretal sum remains unsatisfied to date. The applicant further averred that the 1 st respondent operates Bank Account No. 1107…712 at KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, Moi Avenue Branch, which ought to be attached to satisfy the judgment debt. The applicant was apprehensive that the 1 st respondent may withdraw and/or move the funds held to its credit by the Garnishee unless the orders sought herein are granted.
[3] Upon a Garnishee Order Nisi being served on the Garnishee, it filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on the 10 th November 2025 by Joseph Wambugu, the Garnishee’s Corporate Services Manager based at the Moi Avenue Branch. The Garnishee conceded that it is indeed holding funds in the name of the 1 st respondent at its Moi Avenue Branch to the tune of Kshs. 4,794,672.24 and pointed out that the funds are insufficient to settle the entire decretal sum demanded by the applicant together with certified costs. It nevertheless expressed its readiness to pay the same in satisfaction of the decree, less its costs in the sum of Kshs. 30,000/=.
[4] The 1 st respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 11 nd November 2025, contending that:
[a] Execution through garnishee proceedings as contemplated under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a preserve of civil proceedings and not applicable in Judicial Review.
[c] There is no such relief as garnishee proceedings in the laws donating the judicial review jurisdiction under the Constitution or the Law Reform Act under which the applicants approached the Court.
[d] The judicial review jurisdiction is sui generis and not subject to the Civil Procedure Act and Rules where garnishee proceedings are provided for.
[e] The nature of an order of Mandamus is not a debt and does not create a debt due to an applicant for which garnishee proceedings are applicable.
[f] The Court, in exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction, lacks the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought as they are beyond the purview of judicial review.
[g] The respondent is an agency performing public functions and whose budgetary allocation is premised on specific functions that do not include compensation for human/wildlife conflict.
[h] The respondent has demonstrated substantial performance of the duty under Section 25(iii) of the Wildlife Management Act by ensuring that the incident was verified, amount payable recommended and approved so that what remains now is only dispatch of the first instalment of Kshs. 2.5 million during the next accounting period.
[i] The applicant has recourse in contempt proceedings should the Court orders remain unheeded after a reasonable period of time.
[g] The Notice of Motion dated 4 th November 2025 is incompetent, incurably defective and bad in law, and should be dismissed with costs to the applicant (sic).
[5] The application was canvassed by way of written submissions, pursuant to the directions given herein on 13 th November 2025. The applicant complied and filed written submissions dated 12 th November 2025. In the light of the assertions made by the 1 st respondent in its Grounds of Opposition dated 11 th November 2025, the applicant proposed the following issues for determination:
[a] Whether the 1 st respondent is government or a department of government within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act.
[b] Whether garnishee proceedings are available in judicial review matters.
[6] The applicant submitted that the issue as to whether the 1 st respondent, Kenya Wildlife Services, is government or a department of government within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act, has been the subject of numerous court cases; and that the Court of Appeal has pronounced itself in one of the decisions. The applicant submitted that the decision of the Court of Appeal is binding on this Court and therefore to arrive at a different finding would amount to re-inventing the wheel. The applicant relied on the following authorities, among others:
[a] Masha v Kenya Wildlife Service; Standard Chartered Bank & another (Garnishee) (Tribunal Appeal 37 of 2020) [2023] KENET 488 (KLR) (Environment and Land) (1 September 2023) (Ruling in which the Tribunal held that KWS, as established under Section 6(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 2013 is a state corporation clothed with corporate personality and the capacity to sue and be sued in its corporate name and is therefore not government or government department for purposes of the Government Proceedings Act.
[b] Bob Thompson Dickens Ngobi v Kenya Ports Authority & others [2017] KEHC 627 (KLR) in which it was held that a statutory corporation, unless the creating statute says otherwise, is not an appendage or department of the government as contemplated under the Government Proceedings Act; and therefore one need not invite the application of the Government Proceedings Act when Parliament in its wisdom thought otherwise by spending public resources to enact statute to regulate the body as desired.
[c] Ngayau Mutia & another v Kenya Petroleum Refineries Limited [2020] KEHC 5742 (KLR) in which a similar objection was raised and the Court dismissed the same on the ground that a state corporation is a body corporate with capacity to sue and be sued. The court further held that such an entity is not government or a department of government even though they perform certain functions on behalf of government, which functions cannot adequately or efficiently be performed within the structure of government ministries.
[d] Merry Elly Ndeda & another v Kenya Wildlife Service; KCB Bank Limited (Garnishee) [2025] KEHC 6140 (KLR), in which the court held that KWS is not government or government department within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act and is therefore subject to execution by way of garnishee proceedings. S
[7] Accordingly, the applicant urged the Court to find merit in the garnishee application and grant the orders sought by him.
[8] On whether garnishee proceedings are applicable to judicial review proceedings, the applicant submitted that, since the 1 st respondent is not government or a department of government it is open to him to pursue any form of execution available to him under the Civil Procedure Rules. He relied on Kenya National Highways Authority v Ahmednassir Maalim Abdullahi [2021] eKLR in which it was held that a successful litigant should not be barred from enjoying the fruits of litigation as to do so would violate the decree-holder’s constitutional right of access to justice.
[9] The applicant further submitted that since the remedy of judicial review is also provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules under Order 53, it cannot validly be argued that decrees ensuing therefrom cannot be executed in the manner provided for by the Civil Procedure Rules where there is no specific provision of law barring such execution. On the authority of Blue Shield Insurance Company Ltd v County Government of Mombasa; National Bank of Kenya and another (Garnishee) [2019] eKLR, Joseph Nyanamba & 4 others v Kenya Railways Corporation [2015] eKLR and African Commuter Services Ltd v The Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & 2 others [2014] eKLR, the applicant urged the Court to allow his application and issue the orders prayed for.
[10] I have considered the written submissions dated 15 th January 2026, filed by the 1 st respondent and noted that they bear no relevance to the instant application.
[11] Accordingly, the issues for consideration, as well summarized by counsel for the applicant are:
[a] Whether the 1 st respondent is government or a department of government within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act.
[b] Whether garnishee proceedings are available in judicial review matters.
[12] In respect of the first issue, I entirely agree with the position taken in the authorities cited by the applicant. I need only mention one of them, namely, Nyawara & another (Suing as the Administrators & Legal Representatives of the Estate of John Clinton) v Kenya Wildlife Service; KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Garnishee) (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 13746 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Ruling), in which similar issues were raised in the course of garnishee proceedings. The Court held:
“T he judgment debtor for all intends and purposes is a state corporation and therefore a body corporate with capacity to sue and be sued and also with capacity to hold property. That being the case, it should not be treated as part of Government per se as they are independent of government formed by government in order to undertake and perform certain functions on behalf of the government which cannot be adequately or efficiently performed within the structure of Government Ministries...”
[13] Consequently, while it was open to the applicant to apply for contempt proceedings, nothing bars him from moving the Court by way of garnishee proceedings as provided for in Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In Nyawara (supra) a similar application was allowed and the Court held:
From the foregoing observations, it is clear that the Judgment Debtor is a parastatal with a common seal capable of suing and being sued in its name and therefore, it cannot seek refuge under the Government Proceedings Act .
12.The Judgment Debtor having failed to establish that it is a government entity and not a parastatal, then the Garnishee has no option but to allow the attachment of the sums in accordance with the decree. Further, as the Garnishee has failed to show cause why the decree nisi should not be made absolute, then the Applicants are entitled to the prayer for a garnishee order absolute.
[14] In the result, the application dated 4 th November 2025 is hereby allowed and orders granted as follows:
[a] That a Garnishee Order Absolute be and is hereby issued against KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the Garnishee herein, in respect of its Moi Avenue Branch Account Number 1107…712, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the 1 st respondent be attached to the extent available, namely Kshs. 4,794,672.24, for purposes of partial satisfaction of the decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= and costs in respect of which judgment was entered herein in favour of the applicants.
[b] That the costs of the application, including the Garnishee’s costs of Kshs. 30,000/= be borne by the 1 st respondent.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2026
[a] Spent
[b] The Court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Nisi against KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the Garnishee herein, in respect of its Moi Avenue Branch Account Number 1107…712, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the respondent/judgment debtor be attached to settle and/or satisfy the judgment debt of Kshs. 5,000,000/= being the amount in respect of which judgment was entered in favour of the applicants together with Costs. (Spent)
[c] That KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the said Garnishees herein, do attend Court to show cause why it should not pay the applicants the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= being the decretal amount from the funds in the accounts operated by the judgment debtor in the Garnishee's various branches. (Spent)
[d] That the Court be pleased to issue a Garnishee Order Absolute against KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the Garnishee herein, in respect of its Moi Avenue Branch Account Number 1107…712, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the 1 st respondent be attached to settle and/or satisfy the decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= and costs in respect of which judgment was entered herein in favour of the applicants.
[e] That the costs of the application be borne by the respondent.
[2] The application was supported by the affidavit sworn on 4 th November 2025 by the applicant, Benard Odhiambo Odoyo , in which he averred that this Court entered judgment in his favour on the 22 nd May 2025 as against the respondents for the sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= together with costs, and that the decretal sum remains unsatisfied to date. The applicant further averred that the 1 st respondent operates Bank Account No. 1107…712 at KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, Moi Avenue Branch, which ought to be attached to satisfy the judgment debt. The applicant was apprehensive that the 1 st respondent may withdraw and/or move the funds held to its credit by the Garnishee unless the orders sought herein are granted.
[3] Upon a Garnishee Order Nisi being served on the Garnishee, it filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on the 10 th November 2025 by Joseph Wambugu, the Garnishee’s Corporate Services Manager based at the Moi Avenue Branch. The Garnishee conceded that it is indeed holding funds in the name of the 1 st respondent at its Moi Avenue Branch to the tune of Kshs. 4,794,672.24 and pointed out that the funds are insufficient to settle the entire decretal sum demanded by the applicant together with certified costs. It nevertheless expressed its readiness to pay the same in satisfaction of the decree, less its costs in the sum of Kshs. 30,000/=.
[4] The 1 st respondent filed Grounds of Opposition dated 11 nd November 2025, contending that:
[a] Execution through garnishee proceedings as contemplated under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a preserve of civil proceedings and not applicable in Judicial Review.
[c] There is no such relief as garnishee proceedings in the laws donating the judicial review jurisdiction under the Constitution or the Law Reform Act under which the applicants approached the Court.
[d] The judicial review jurisdiction is sui generis and not subject to the Civil Procedure Act and Rules where garnishee proceedings are provided for.
[e] The nature of an order of Mandamus is not a debt and does not create a debt due to an applicant for which garnishee proceedings are applicable.
[f] The Court, in exercise of its judicial review jurisdiction, lacks the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought as they are beyond the purview of judicial review.
[g] The respondent is an agency performing public functions and whose budgetary allocation is premised on specific functions that do not include compensation for human/wildlife conflict.
[h] The respondent has demonstrated substantial performance of the duty under Section 25(iii) of the Wildlife Management Act by ensuring that the incident was verified, amount payable recommended and approved so that what remains now is only dispatch of the first instalment of Kshs. 2.5 million during the next accounting period.
[i] The applicant has recourse in contempt proceedings should the Court orders remain unheeded after a reasonable period of time.
[g] The Notice of Motion dated 4 th November 2025 is incompetent, incurably defective and bad in law, and should be dismissed with costs to the applicant (sic).
[5] The application was canvassed by way of written submissions, pursuant to the directions given herein on 13 th November 2025. The applicant complied and filed written submissions dated 12 th November 2025. In the light of the assertions made by the 1 st respondent in its Grounds of Opposition dated 11 th November 2025, the applicant proposed the following issues for determination:
[a] Whether the 1 st respondent is government or a department of government within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act.
[b] Whether garnishee proceedings are available in judicial review matters.
[6] The applicant submitted that the issue as to whether the 1 st respondent, Kenya Wildlife Services, is government or a department of government within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act, has been the subject of numerous court cases; and that the Court of Appeal has pronounced itself in one of the decisions. The applicant submitted that the decision of the Court of Appeal is binding on this Court and therefore to arrive at a different finding would amount to re-inventing the wheel. The applicant relied on the following authorities, among others:
[a] Masha v Kenya Wildlife Service; Standard Chartered Bank & another (Garnishee) (Tribunal Appeal 37 of 2020) [2023] KENET 488 (KLR) (Environment and Land) (1 September 2023) (Ruling in which the Tribunal held that KWS, as established under Section 6(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 2013 is a state corporation clothed with corporate personality and the capacity to sue and be sued in its corporate name and is therefore not government or government department for purposes of the Government Proceedings Act.
[b] Bob Thompson Dickens Ngobi v Kenya Ports Authority & others [2017] KEHC 627 (KLR) in which it was held that a statutory corporation, unless the creating statute says otherwise, is not an appendage or department of the government as contemplated under the Government Proceedings Act; and therefore one need not invite the application of the Government Proceedings Act when Parliament in its wisdom thought otherwise by spending public resources to enact statute to regulate the body as desired.
[c] Ngayau Mutia & another v Kenya Petroleum Refineries Limited [2020] KEHC 5742 (KLR) in which a similar objection was raised and the Court dismissed the same on the ground that a state corporation is a body corporate with capacity to sue and be sued. The court further held that such an entity is not government or a department of government even though they perform certain functions on behalf of government, which functions cannot adequately or efficiently be performed within the structure of government ministries.
[d] Merry Elly Ndeda & another v Kenya Wildlife Service; KCB Bank Limited (Garnishee) [2025] KEHC 6140 (KLR), in which the court held that KWS is not government or government department within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act and is therefore subject to execution by way of garnishee proceedings. S
[7] Accordingly, the applicant urged the Court to find merit in the garnishee application and grant the orders sought by him.
[8] On whether garnishee proceedings are applicable to judicial review proceedings, the applicant submitted that, since the 1 st respondent is not government or a department of government it is open to him to pursue any form of execution available to him under the Civil Procedure Rules. He relied on Kenya National Highways Authority v Ahmednassir Maalim Abdullahi [2021] eKLR in which it was held that a successful litigant should not be barred from enjoying the fruits of litigation as to do so would violate the decree-holder’s constitutional right of access to justice.
[9] The applicant further submitted that since the remedy of judicial review is also provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules under Order 53, it cannot validly be argued that decrees ensuing therefrom cannot be executed in the manner provided for by the Civil Procedure Rules where there is no specific provision of law barring such execution. On the authority of Blue Shield Insurance Company Ltd v County Government of Mombasa; National Bank of Kenya and another (Garnishee) [2019] eKLR, Joseph Nyanamba & 4 others v Kenya Railways Corporation [2015] eKLR and African Commuter Services Ltd v The Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & 2 others [2014] eKLR, the applicant urged the Court to allow his application and issue the orders prayed for.
[10] I have considered the written submissions dated 15 th January 2026, filed by the 1 st respondent and noted that they bear no relevance to the instant application.
[11] Accordingly, the issues for consideration, as well summarized by counsel for the applicant are:
[a] Whether the 1 st respondent is government or a department of government within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act.
[b] Whether garnishee proceedings are available in judicial review matters.
[12] In respect of the first issue, I entirely agree with the position taken in the authorities cited by the applicant. I need only mention one of them, namely, Nyawara & another (Suing as the Administrators & Legal Representatives of the Estate of John Clinton) v Kenya Wildlife Service; KCB Bank Kenya Limited (Garnishee) (Judicial Review E001 of 2025) [2025] KEHC 13746 (KLR) (3 October 2025) (Ruling), in which similar issues were raised in the course of garnishee proceedings. The Court held:
“T he judgment debtor for all intends and purposes is a state corporation and therefore a body corporate with capacity to sue and be sued and also with capacity to hold property. That being the case, it should not be treated as part of Government per se as they are independent of government formed by government in order to undertake and perform certain functions on behalf of the government which cannot be adequately or efficiently performed within the structure of Government Ministries...”
[13] Consequently, while it was open to the applicant to apply for contempt proceedings, nothing bars him from moving the Court by way of garnishee proceedings as provided for in Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In Nyawara (supra) a similar application was allowed and the Court held:
From the foregoing observations, it is clear that the Judgment Debtor is a parastatal with a common seal capable of suing and being sued in its name and therefore, it cannot seek refuge under the Government Proceedings Act .
12.The Judgment Debtor having failed to establish that it is a government entity and not a parastatal, then the Garnishee has no option but to allow the attachment of the sums in accordance with the decree. Further, as the Garnishee has failed to show cause why the decree nisi should not be made absolute, then the Applicants are entitled to the prayer for a garnishee order absolute.
[14] In the result, the application dated 4 th November 2025 is hereby allowed and orders granted as follows:
[a] That a Garnishee Order Absolute be and is hereby issued against KCB BANK KENYA LIMITED, the Garnishee herein, in respect of its Moi Avenue Branch Account Number 1107…712, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the 1 st respondent be attached to the extent available, namely Kshs. 4,794,672.24, for purposes of partial satisfaction of the decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000/= and costs in respect of which judgment was entered herein in favour of the applicants.
[b] That the costs of the application, including the Garnishee’s costs of Kshs. 30,000/= be borne by the 1 st respondent.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2026