1. The Plaintiff/ Decree Holder filed a Notice of Motion application dated 14th May, 2026 seeking for issuance of Garnishee Order Nisi for a sum of Kshs. 80,000/= out of the funds held by the Garnishee in the accounts of the County Government of Mombasa held at KCB Bank Limited in bank account numbers 1162415967 and 1180783522 , and in Access Bank Kenya PLC (Successor in tile to National Bank of Kenya, account number 01050089324300, in satisfaction of the decree issued in this suit.
2. The Applicant also sought to have the Defendant release Kshs. 80,000,000/= or such sum of money as may be held by the Garnishee in the account numbers in the banks as stated herein above. Costs were also prayed for. Pending hearing and determination of the application, Garnishee Order Nisi were issued inter-partes on 26th May 2026.
3. Directions were issued on the application. The Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7th June, 2026 stating that the prayers sought in the application dated 14thMay, 2026 (though erroneously indicated as 15th May 2026), offend the provisions of Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
4. The 1st Garnishee Bank filed a Replying Affidavit dated 9th July 2026, sworn by Fatma Kandi, the bank’s Corporate Relationship Manager. She confirmed that as at the time the Garnishee Order Nisi was served, the Defendant had a balance of Ksh. 16,870,911/= in account no. 1162415967 and Kshs. 63,956,425.36 I account no. 1180783522, totaling to Kshs. 80,827,336.36.
5. It was however stated that the Defendant had a credit facility with the 1st Garnishee which was outstanding to the tune of Kshs. 654,658,812/= as at 25th June, 2026., hence recovery of its loans takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s claim. The 1st Garnishee also prays for costs of the proceedings at a sum of Kshs. 50,000/=.
6. It was directed that the Preliminary Objection and the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. Only the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed their rival submissions.
Analysis
7. I have perused through the Preliminary Objection, the Notice of Motion application, the affidavits on record and the annexures thereto, as well as the submissions and authorities filed by the parties.
8. The issues before this court are;
a. Whether the Preliminary Objection has merits.
b. Whether the interests of the 1st Garnishee takes precedence
c. Whether the Decree Order Nisi should be made absolute
9. The applicable principles in determining the merits of a preliminary objection were set out in the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969) EA 696 as follows: -
“… A Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit …
A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is usually on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of Judicial discretion …”
10. In applying the test whether the preliminary objection has met the threshold set out above;
a. the preliminary objection ought to raise a pure point of law
b. there should be a demonstration that facts pleaded by the other side are correct
c. facts need not be ascertained.
11. The Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection on grounds that the Garnishee application offends S ection 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which provides as hereunder; provides as follows;
Satisfaction of orders against the Government
(1) 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:
Provided that, if the court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant.
(2)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.
(3)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:
Provided that the court by which any such order as aforesaid is made or any court to which an appeal against the order lies may direct that, pending an appeal or otherwise, payment of the whole of any amount so payable, or any part thereof, shall be suspended, and if the certificate has not been issued may order any such direction to be inserted therein.
(4)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.
(5)This section shall, with necessary modifications, apply to any civil proceedings by or against a county government, or in any proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which a county government is a party.
12. The issues raised are points of law, hence the Preliminary Objection is properly before this court.Defendant relied on Section 21 (4) of the Government Proceedings Act in submitting that the said section prohibits execution against the government. Further, under Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules , prohibits garnishee proceedings against the government. The section provides as hereunder;
(1) Except as provided by the Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 40) or by these Rules-
(a) these Rules shall apply to all civil proceedings by or against the Government; and
(b) civil proceedings by or against the Government shall take the same form as civil proceedings between subjects and shall, if no special form is applicable, take the form of a suit instituted by a plaint.
(2) No order against the Government may be made under-
(a) Order 14, rule 4 (Impounding of documents);
(b) Order 22 (Execution of decrees and orders);
(c) Order 23 (Attachment of debts);
(d) Order 40 (Injunctions); and
(e) Order 41 (Appointment of receiver).
13. TheIt is a fact that judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff/ Respondent against the Defendant/ Applicant. The Applicant did not satisfy the judgment. This led the Respondent to file Judicial Review Proceedings to compel the Applicant to satisfy the decretal sum. On 11th March, 2019 the Plaintiff obtained an order of mandamus compelling the Defendant to satisfy the judgment of the court. On 25th July, 2019, this court issued a warrant of arrest against the Defendant officials to be committed to civil jail for six months for non-compliance with the court order to settle the decretal sum.
14. The Plaintiff obtained warrants if arrest against the Defendant’s official, Swaleh Mwalizuma, but before the execution of the same, the parties entered in to a consent on the amount payable in settlement of the claim and the mode of payment. The Consent dated 16th September 2025 was adopted as the orders of the court. The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff an all-inclusive sum of Kshs. 120,000,000/=. The money was to be paid in six (six) monthly instalments commencing on the 31st October 2025, and thereafter every end month until 31st March 2026.
15. The Defendant paid a sun of Kshs. 40,000,000/= leaving a balance of Kshs. 80,000,000/=. Despite demand to pay the balance, the Defendant failed to satisfy the demand, thus the filing of the garnishee proceedings subject to this ruling.
16. The Defendant in its Preliminary Objection stated that garnishee proceedings are prohibited against as provided for under section 21 (4) of the Government Proceedings Ac t as read together with Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
17. The Defendant made reliance to the case of Kisya Investment Ltd v Attorney General & another [2005] KEHC 3226 (KLR) on the rationale for barring execution against the Government. From the reading of the Judgment by Alnashir Visram J. and Mohammed K. Ibrahim J. (as they then were), the execution against the Government was not strictly barred but it provided for restricted execution of decrees against the judgment, as unrestricted execution would disrupt essential government operations.
18. The Defendant also relied on the case of Five Star Agencies Ltd & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Civil Appeal E290 & 328 of 2023 (Consolidated) [2024] KECA 439 (KLR) (12 April 2014) which provided for the procedure to be adopted while executing against the government. In the matter, the garnishee proceedings against the Defendant (National Land Commission) were set aside as they were instituted without the strict adherence to section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
19. In this case, the set of facts are distinguishable from the Five Star case (supra). The Plaintiff herein obtained the judgment against the Defendant, Certificate was issued, an application for Judicial Review was filed and an order for mandamus issued against the Defendant compelling it to settle the decree.
20. The Defendant confirmed the position in its submissions at paragraph 8 in reference to the Five Star case stated as follows;
“In answering the question the appellate court determined that it was clear beyond adventure that the procedure to be followed in execution against the government is to seek an order of mandamus to compel the relevant person in the Government to settle the decree in question”
21. In addition to obtaining an order of mandamus against the Defendant, the Plaintiff went ahead to obtain warrants of arrest against the official of the Defendant, one Mr. Swaleh Mwalizuma. Before the warrants were executed, the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into a consent on the payment of the decretal sum as stated herein above.
22. The Plaintiff took further steps in filing a Constitutional Petition before this court in Mombasa High Court Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2020 seeking to have the Defendant and the Governor of the County Government of Mombasa declared unfit to hold public offices. The Petition is still pending determination.
23. Despite all the steps taken by the Plaintiff, the Defendant refuses to settle the judgment and it now takes shield under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. This section only bars direct and ordinary execution against the government. Taking into consideration the steps taken by the Plaintiff in execution of the decree, they cannot be said to be in ordinary and direct execution of a monetary decree.
24. It is a fact that the route taken under section 21 above delay the payments of the debts owed by the government. It has taken the Plaintiff over 7 years in pursuit of the fruits of its judgment and in compliance with the conditions set under section 21.
25. It has been argued that section 21 above is inconsistent with Article 27 of the Constitution on equality and freedom from discrimination, where the litigants ought to be accorded the same privileges and responsibilities. It has also been argued that section 21 above impedes access to justice and is inconsistent with Article 48 of the Constitution. I do associate myself with the above as it puts the government as a judgment debtor in a privileged position as against an ordinary litigant, at the risk of a successful litigant having the burden to bear and babysit barren decrees that cannot be executed due to the immunity provided.
26. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff in this case obtained the Certificate of Costs and order for mandamus against the Defendant, and it went further to an extent of obtaining warrants of arrest against the Defendant’s official. After all that was done, the defendant recorded a consent on settling the monetary decree. There is no evidence that the consent decree was obtained by way of duress. It was voluntarily entered by the parties after compliance of section 21 by the Plaintiff. The Defendant is therefore estopped from taking the shield as provided for under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
27. Further, it was never the intention of section 21 to deny successful litigants against the government from enjoying the fruits of their judgment. In the case of Ikon Prints Media Company Limited v Kenya National Highways Authority & 2 others [2015] KEHC 1517 (KLR), it was held as follows;
“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.”
28. This court having issued orders towards the execution of the decree, and the Plaintiff having complied with section 21 as stated herein above, and the Defendant having entered into a consent to settle the monetary decree, I find that the Defendant cannot plead immunity under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act . The Preliminary Objection therefore lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.
29. On the second issue, the 1st Garnishee opposed the application for garnishee proceedings. It stated that its credit facility of Kshs. 654,658,812/= advanced to the Defendant takes precedence over the monetary decree claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. It has not been disclosed when the facility was extended to the Defendant.
30. Upon perusal of the statement annexed to the 1st Garnishee Replying Affidavit, it is indicated that the credit facility runs from 25th May 2026 and matures on 9th July 2026. I do agree with the submissions by the Plaintiff that the debt due to the Plaintiff accrued first and takes precedence. Further, in comparison to the money owed to the 1st Garnishee, it cannot be said that the Garnishee Order Absolute would frustrate the recovery of the money due to the 1st Garnishee. I decline to uphold the objection by the 1st Garnishee and order that the Garnishee Order Nisi issued be made absolute, and the money held in the garnisheed accounts be released to the Plaintiff.
Determination
31. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court orders as hereunder;
a) That the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 07/06/2026 has got no merits and is hereby dismissed.
b) The Notice of Motion dated 14/05/2026 has merits and is hereby allowed. The Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 26/05/2026 is hereby made absolute.
c) The objection by the 1st Garnishee id hereby overruled.
d) Costs to the Plaintiff and the 1st Garnishee.
Dated, delivered virtually at Mombasa on this 13th day of August, 2026.
F. WANGARI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
In the presence of;
Mr. Gikandi Advocate for the Plaintiff
Mr. Randiek for the Defendant
Ms. Cheruiyot Advocate for the 1st Garnishee
Ms. Salwa, Court Assistant
2. The Applicant also sought to have the Defendant release Kshs. 80,000,000/= or such sum of money as may be held by the Garnishee in the account numbers in the banks as stated herein above. Costs were also prayed for. Pending hearing and determination of the application, Garnishee Order Nisi were issued inter-partes on 26th May 2026.
3. Directions were issued on the application. The Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7th June, 2026 stating that the prayers sought in the application dated 14thMay, 2026 (though erroneously indicated as 15th May 2026), offend the provisions of Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
4. The 1st Garnishee Bank filed a Replying Affidavit dated 9th July 2026, sworn by Fatma Kandi, the bank’s Corporate Relationship Manager. She confirmed that as at the time the Garnishee Order Nisi was served, the Defendant had a balance of Ksh. 16,870,911/= in account no. 1162415967 and Kshs. 63,956,425.36 I account no. 1180783522, totaling to Kshs. 80,827,336.36.
5. It was however stated that the Defendant had a credit facility with the 1st Garnishee which was outstanding to the tune of Kshs. 654,658,812/= as at 25th June, 2026., hence recovery of its loans takes precedence over the Plaintiff’s claim. The 1st Garnishee also prays for costs of the proceedings at a sum of Kshs. 50,000/=.
6. It was directed that the Preliminary Objection and the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. Only the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed their rival submissions.
Analysis
7. I have perused through the Preliminary Objection, the Notice of Motion application, the affidavits on record and the annexures thereto, as well as the submissions and authorities filed by the parties.
8. The issues before this court are;
a. Whether the Preliminary Objection has merits.
b. Whether the interests of the 1st Garnishee takes precedence
c. Whether the Decree Order Nisi should be made absolute
9. The applicable principles in determining the merits of a preliminary objection were set out in the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969) EA 696 as follows: -
“… A Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit …
A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is usually on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of Judicial discretion …”
10. In applying the test whether the preliminary objection has met the threshold set out above;
a. the preliminary objection ought to raise a pure point of law
b. there should be a demonstration that facts pleaded by the other side are correct
c. facts need not be ascertained.
11. The Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection on grounds that the Garnishee application offends S ection 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, which provides as hereunder; provides as follows;
Satisfaction of orders against the Government
(1) 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:
Provided that, if the court so directs, a separate certificate shall be issued with respect to the costs (if any) ordered to be paid to the applicant.
(2)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.
(3)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:
Provided that the court by which any such order as aforesaid is made or any court to which an appeal against the order lies may direct that, pending an appeal or otherwise, payment of the whole of any amount so payable, or any part thereof, shall be suspended, and if the certificate has not been issued may order any such direction to be inserted therein.
(4)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.
(5)This section shall, with necessary modifications, apply to any civil proceedings by or against a county government, or in any proceedings in connection with any arbitration in which a county government is a party.
12. The issues raised are points of law, hence the Preliminary Objection is properly before this court.Defendant relied on Section 21 (4) of the Government Proceedings Act in submitting that the said section prohibits execution against the government. Further, under Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules , prohibits garnishee proceedings against the government. The section provides as hereunder;
(1) Except as provided by the Government Proceedings Act (Cap. 40) or by these Rules-
(a) these Rules shall apply to all civil proceedings by or against the Government; and
(b) civil proceedings by or against the Government shall take the same form as civil proceedings between subjects and shall, if no special form is applicable, take the form of a suit instituted by a plaint.
(2) No order against the Government may be made under-
(a) Order 14, rule 4 (Impounding of documents);
(b) Order 22 (Execution of decrees and orders);
(c) Order 23 (Attachment of debts);
(d) Order 40 (Injunctions); and
(e) Order 41 (Appointment of receiver).
13. TheIt is a fact that judgment was entered in favour of the Plaintiff/ Respondent against the Defendant/ Applicant. The Applicant did not satisfy the judgment. This led the Respondent to file Judicial Review Proceedings to compel the Applicant to satisfy the decretal sum. On 11th March, 2019 the Plaintiff obtained an order of mandamus compelling the Defendant to satisfy the judgment of the court. On 25th July, 2019, this court issued a warrant of arrest against the Defendant officials to be committed to civil jail for six months for non-compliance with the court order to settle the decretal sum.
14. The Plaintiff obtained warrants if arrest against the Defendant’s official, Swaleh Mwalizuma, but before the execution of the same, the parties entered in to a consent on the amount payable in settlement of the claim and the mode of payment. The Consent dated 16th September 2025 was adopted as the orders of the court. The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff an all-inclusive sum of Kshs. 120,000,000/=. The money was to be paid in six (six) monthly instalments commencing on the 31st October 2025, and thereafter every end month until 31st March 2026.
15. The Defendant paid a sun of Kshs. 40,000,000/= leaving a balance of Kshs. 80,000,000/=. Despite demand to pay the balance, the Defendant failed to satisfy the demand, thus the filing of the garnishee proceedings subject to this ruling.
16. The Defendant in its Preliminary Objection stated that garnishee proceedings are prohibited against as provided for under section 21 (4) of the Government Proceedings Ac t as read together with Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
17. The Defendant made reliance to the case of Kisya Investment Ltd v Attorney General & another [2005] KEHC 3226 (KLR) on the rationale for barring execution against the Government. From the reading of the Judgment by Alnashir Visram J. and Mohammed K. Ibrahim J. (as they then were), the execution against the Government was not strictly barred but it provided for restricted execution of decrees against the judgment, as unrestricted execution would disrupt essential government operations.
18. The Defendant also relied on the case of Five Star Agencies Ltd & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Civil Appeal E290 & 328 of 2023 (Consolidated) [2024] KECA 439 (KLR) (12 April 2014) which provided for the procedure to be adopted while executing against the government. In the matter, the garnishee proceedings against the Defendant (National Land Commission) were set aside as they were instituted without the strict adherence to section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
19. In this case, the set of facts are distinguishable from the Five Star case (supra). The Plaintiff herein obtained the judgment against the Defendant, Certificate was issued, an application for Judicial Review was filed and an order for mandamus issued against the Defendant compelling it to settle the decree.
20. The Defendant confirmed the position in its submissions at paragraph 8 in reference to the Five Star case stated as follows;
“In answering the question the appellate court determined that it was clear beyond adventure that the procedure to be followed in execution against the government is to seek an order of mandamus to compel the relevant person in the Government to settle the decree in question”
21. In addition to obtaining an order of mandamus against the Defendant, the Plaintiff went ahead to obtain warrants of arrest against the official of the Defendant, one Mr. Swaleh Mwalizuma. Before the warrants were executed, the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into a consent on the payment of the decretal sum as stated herein above.
22. The Plaintiff took further steps in filing a Constitutional Petition before this court in Mombasa High Court Constitutional Petition No. 37 of 2020 seeking to have the Defendant and the Governor of the County Government of Mombasa declared unfit to hold public offices. The Petition is still pending determination.
23. Despite all the steps taken by the Plaintiff, the Defendant refuses to settle the judgment and it now takes shield under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. This section only bars direct and ordinary execution against the government. Taking into consideration the steps taken by the Plaintiff in execution of the decree, they cannot be said to be in ordinary and direct execution of a monetary decree.
24. It is a fact that the route taken under section 21 above delay the payments of the debts owed by the government. It has taken the Plaintiff over 7 years in pursuit of the fruits of its judgment and in compliance with the conditions set under section 21.
25. It has been argued that section 21 above is inconsistent with Article 27 of the Constitution on equality and freedom from discrimination, where the litigants ought to be accorded the same privileges and responsibilities. It has also been argued that section 21 above impedes access to justice and is inconsistent with Article 48 of the Constitution. I do associate myself with the above as it puts the government as a judgment debtor in a privileged position as against an ordinary litigant, at the risk of a successful litigant having the burden to bear and babysit barren decrees that cannot be executed due to the immunity provided.
26. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff in this case obtained the Certificate of Costs and order for mandamus against the Defendant, and it went further to an extent of obtaining warrants of arrest against the Defendant’s official. After all that was done, the defendant recorded a consent on settling the monetary decree. There is no evidence that the consent decree was obtained by way of duress. It was voluntarily entered by the parties after compliance of section 21 by the Plaintiff. The Defendant is therefore estopped from taking the shield as provided for under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act.
27. Further, it was never the intention of section 21 to deny successful litigants against the government from enjoying the fruits of their judgment. In the case of Ikon Prints Media Company Limited v Kenya National Highways Authority & 2 others [2015] KEHC 1517 (KLR), it was held as follows;
“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.”
28. This court having issued orders towards the execution of the decree, and the Plaintiff having complied with section 21 as stated herein above, and the Defendant having entered into a consent to settle the monetary decree, I find that the Defendant cannot plead immunity under section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act . The Preliminary Objection therefore lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.
29. On the second issue, the 1st Garnishee opposed the application for garnishee proceedings. It stated that its credit facility of Kshs. 654,658,812/= advanced to the Defendant takes precedence over the monetary decree claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. It has not been disclosed when the facility was extended to the Defendant.
30. Upon perusal of the statement annexed to the 1st Garnishee Replying Affidavit, it is indicated that the credit facility runs from 25th May 2026 and matures on 9th July 2026. I do agree with the submissions by the Plaintiff that the debt due to the Plaintiff accrued first and takes precedence. Further, in comparison to the money owed to the 1st Garnishee, it cannot be said that the Garnishee Order Absolute would frustrate the recovery of the money due to the 1st Garnishee. I decline to uphold the objection by the 1st Garnishee and order that the Garnishee Order Nisi issued be made absolute, and the money held in the garnisheed accounts be released to the Plaintiff.
Determination
31. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court orders as hereunder;
a) That the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 07/06/2026 has got no merits and is hereby dismissed.
b) The Notice of Motion dated 14/05/2026 has merits and is hereby allowed. The Garnishee Order Nisi issued on 26/05/2026 is hereby made absolute.
c) The objection by the 1st Garnishee id hereby overruled.
d) Costs to the Plaintiff and the 1st Garnishee.
Dated, delivered virtually at Mombasa on this 13th day of August, 2026.
F. WANGARI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
In the presence of;
Mr. Gikandi Advocate for the Plaintiff
Mr. Randiek for the Defendant
Ms. Cheruiyot Advocate for the 1st Garnishee
Ms. Salwa, Court Assistant