RULING
1. There are two applications by the decree holders for consideration. The motions on notice dated 3.7.2024 and 21.5.2025 by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd decree holders. I will refer to them as the first and second application, respectively.
First application
2. Through the first application, the decree holders seek an order for attachment and sale of all such property identified in the deceased’s estate’s account that is sufficient to settle the decretal sum including any property that was unlawfully transferred or transmitted to defeat the arbitral award.
3. They also seek that the 1st judgment debtor be compelled to pay the full decretal amount from the estate of the deceased.
Second application
4. In the second application, the decree holder seeks: -
(1) The court be pleased to order the specified stockbrokers to forthwith sell the shares in the CDSC account number 5460 registered in the name of the late John Njoroge Keige that were frozen pursuant to the court order dated 18.7.2023.
(2) The freezing orders be lifted by the Central Depository & Settlement Corporation and the sale proceeds less the stockbrokers’ lawful commission be paid to the decree holder’s specified advocates account.
(3) Dorcas Ndugi Njoroge (sued as the Executor of the Will of John Njoroge Keige (Deceased) be punished for contempt of court by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and/ or a fine or both.
5. The applications are supported by the affidavits sworn by the 1st decree holder on 3.7.2024 and 21.5.2025.
6. The decree holders also filed supplemental written submissions dated 25.2.2026 on the first and second application.
7. The main grounds are that: -
(1) the 1st, 2nd and 3rd judgment debtors are jointly and severally liable to the decree holders pursuant to the decree adopting the arbitral award on 21.3.2024.
(2) The judgment debtors have not settled the decretal sum despite demand.
(3) The 1st judgment debtor was substituted for the deceased. The deceased left a will listing various assets sufficient to settle the decretal sum.
(4) The 1st judgment debtor failed to account for the estate’s dealings despite request.
Responses
8. The 1st judgment debtor opposed the first application through a replying and supplementary affidavits sworn on 1.10.2024, 9.6.2025 and 30.6.2025. She also filed primary and rebuttal submissions dated 11.3.2026 and 1.4.2026.
Cross-examination of 1st Judgment debtor on 1.7.2025
9. The 1st judgment debtor stated that she provided an inventory of the estate’s assets and liabilities. However, she admitted that she did not provide the record of shares. She stated that it was because the succession process was difficult.
10. The 1st judgment debtor stated that the deceased’s former partner, the 2nd judgment debtor, Michael Robert Karanja who was left to run the 3rd judgment debtor is living in Kenya. She stated that the 2nd judgment debtor also ought to settle his part of the decretal sum. She stated that she was willing to pay the deceased’s portion.
11. The 1st judgment debtor confirmed that the succession process was ongoing. She however claimed that it would be difficult to set aside any property for settlement of the decretal sum as everything is in the process of being transferred.
12. She admitted that she did not comply with order 2.
13. She stated that she did not include the decretal sum because it was not a debt yet as the case was ongoing. However, she acknowledged that the succession cause was commenced after the award was published.
14. Mr. Allen highlighted that the 1st judgment debtor substituted her late husband in the matter before the arbitrator.
Analysis and Determination
1. The 1st judgment debtor’s main arguments is that the sale of shares or attachment and sale of any property is premature because the liability has not been apportioned.
2. The 1st judgment debtor argued that the arbitrator did not find the judgment debtors jointly and severally liable. She highlighted that the arbitrator clearly indicated that the judgment debtors would be jointly liable.
3. I have read the award and the decree. Both reflect that the liability of the judgment debtors was joint and several.
4. In the operative award section at page 66 of the award, the arbitrator stated that the respondents shall pay and that the respondents shall jointly pay the 2nd and 3rd claimants.
5. The arbitrator did not apportion liability among the judgment debtors. He also did not state that each judgment debtor was liable for a specified amount.
6. Therefore, the liability is joint.
7. The legal effect of joint and several liability is that each judgment debtor is liable for the whole of the decretal sum. Therefore, the decree holder is at liberty to recover the entire amount from any one or more of them until the decree is fully satisfied. Thus, there is no requirement that the decree holder first apportion liability among the judgment debtors before commencing execution.
8. The decree holders are entitled to proceed with the execution.
Sale of shares
9. The CDSC Account number 5640 in the name of the 1st judgment debtor was previously frozen by the order of the court of 18.7.2023.
10. The purpose of the freezing order was to preserve the assets.
11. The court may authorise sale of shares through a broker. Order 22 Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
12. Prayer 5 in the first application dated 21.5.2025 on sale of shares is merited.
Attachment of immovable property
13. Order 22 Rule 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that: -
“(1) Where the property to be attached is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such purported transfer or charge, and the attachment shall be complete and effective upon registration of a copy of the prohibitory order or inhibition against the title to the property.
14. The guiding principles are that the decree holder ought to establish that it has a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by damages and that the balance of convenience tilts in their favour. Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
15. Further, the decree holder ought to show that the judgment debtor intends to steal a march. Slok Construction Limited v Beverly Lilonde Holdings Limited; Development Bank of Kenya Limited (Proposed Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 12658 (KLR)
16. From the evidence, the 1st judgment debtor is simply feigning imagined legal hurdles to avoid payment of the debt. I also find that the decree holder has established the requisite conditions for the grant of the orders sought.
17. Prayers 6 and 7 of the application dated 3.7.2024 are merited.
Contempt of court
18. The decree holders contended that the 1st judgment debtor is in contempt of the court’s orders for disobeying the court orders of 18.7.2023, by failing to produce bank statements to conceal the amounts therein, she admitted that she sold Nairobi/Block126/555 for Kshs. 30 Million to cater for domestic needs, she admitted that she was in the process of transferring various properties in Nairobi and has transferred Kajiado properties, she admitted that shares in the deceased’s CDSC account were transferred to beneficiaries and that after distribution of all assets and liabilities there was nothing left to satisfy the decretal amount.
19. The 1st judgment debtor submitted that the prayers no.s 7 and 8 for punishment for contempt are spent. She asserted that she demonstrated during cross examination that the execution of the deceased’s estate was lawful and that she was not in contempt of the orders of 18.7.2023.
20. The elements that must be established to make a case for contempt of court were highlighted in the literary work of Contempt in Modern New Zealand, as follows: -
“The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases which is higher than civil cases) that: -
“(1) The terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant;
(2) The defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order;
(3) The defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and
(4) The defendant’s conduct was deliberate.”
21. The record shows that the deceased died testate on 7.7.2020. The award is dated 19.4.2021. The decree is dated 21.3.2024.
22. The 1st judgment debtor admitted that the succession commenced after the award.
23. Mr. Allen pointed out that the 1st judgment debtor substituted her late husband in the matter before the arbitrator.
24. The 1st judgment debtor cannot be heard to say that the debt was omitted from the succession process because it had not crystallized.
Order of 18.7.2023
25. The court issued orders restraining the 1st judgment debtors from transferring shares in the name of the late John Njoroge Keige CDS Account no. 5460. It also issued an order restraining the 1st judgment debtor from intermeddling or transferring monies in the bank accounts and other movable and immovable assets of the deceased. It further ordered to produce, full inventory or assets and liabilities, full inventory of bank accounts, full and accurate account of the completed administration filed in succession court within 30 days.
26. According to the admissions by the 1st judgment debtor during cross-examination, she is simply feigning imagined legal hurdles to circumvent court orders issued against her. She was aware of the orders but deliberately disobeyed them. Thus, I find that she is in contempt of the court’s orders.
Conclusions and orders
27. In conclusion, the decree holders’ applications dated 3.7.2024 and 21.5.2025 are allowed in the following terms: -
(1) The 1st judgment debtor shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this ruling, pay the decretal sum together with any accrued interest and costs from the assets of the deceased's estate.
(2) In default of compliance with Order 1 above, the decree holders shall be at liberty to attach and sell such assets of the deceased's estate as are sufficient to satisfy the decretal sum, including any property found to have been unlawfully transferred or transmitted to defeat the arbitral award, in accordance with the law.
(3) The specified stockbrokers are hereby authorized to sell the shares held in the deceased's CDSC Account No. 5460, which were frozen pursuant to the order of 18.7.2023. The Central Depository & Settlement Corporation shall forthwith lift the freezing orders to the extent necessary to facilitate the sale, and the net proceeds of sale, after deduction of the stockbrokers' lawful commission and other lawful charges, shall be paid to the decree holders in partial or full satisfaction of the decree.
(4) The 1st judgment debtor is hereby found to be in contempt of the orders of this court. However, the court shall defer the imposition of sentence and afford the executor a final opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with Order (1) above within fourteen (14) days of the date of this ruling.
(5) Should the 1st judgment debtor fail to purge the contempt within the period specified in Order 4, the executor shall appear before this court on a date to be fixed by the Deputy Registrar for mitigation and sentencing for contempt, whereupon the court shall consider the appropriate sanction, including imprisonment, a fine, or both.
(6) Costs of the applications are awarded to the decree holders.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi through Microsoft Teams online application this 30th day of July 2026
-------------------
F. Gikonyo M
In the presence of: -
Nadio for Gichuhi for Decree Holder
Ms. Lagat/Omiti for 1st Judgment Debtor
CA- Ivan/Aggrey
1. There are two applications by the decree holders for consideration. The motions on notice dated 3.7.2024 and 21.5.2025 by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd decree holders. I will refer to them as the first and second application, respectively.
First application
2. Through the first application, the decree holders seek an order for attachment and sale of all such property identified in the deceased’s estate’s account that is sufficient to settle the decretal sum including any property that was unlawfully transferred or transmitted to defeat the arbitral award.
3. They also seek that the 1st judgment debtor be compelled to pay the full decretal amount from the estate of the deceased.
Second application
4. In the second application, the decree holder seeks: -
(1) The court be pleased to order the specified stockbrokers to forthwith sell the shares in the CDSC account number 5460 registered in the name of the late John Njoroge Keige that were frozen pursuant to the court order dated 18.7.2023.
(2) The freezing orders be lifted by the Central Depository & Settlement Corporation and the sale proceeds less the stockbrokers’ lawful commission be paid to the decree holder’s specified advocates account.
(3) Dorcas Ndugi Njoroge (sued as the Executor of the Will of John Njoroge Keige (Deceased) be punished for contempt of court by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months and/ or a fine or both.
5. The applications are supported by the affidavits sworn by the 1st decree holder on 3.7.2024 and 21.5.2025.
6. The decree holders also filed supplemental written submissions dated 25.2.2026 on the first and second application.
7. The main grounds are that: -
(1) the 1st, 2nd and 3rd judgment debtors are jointly and severally liable to the decree holders pursuant to the decree adopting the arbitral award on 21.3.2024.
(2) The judgment debtors have not settled the decretal sum despite demand.
(3) The 1st judgment debtor was substituted for the deceased. The deceased left a will listing various assets sufficient to settle the decretal sum.
(4) The 1st judgment debtor failed to account for the estate’s dealings despite request.
Responses
8. The 1st judgment debtor opposed the first application through a replying and supplementary affidavits sworn on 1.10.2024, 9.6.2025 and 30.6.2025. She also filed primary and rebuttal submissions dated 11.3.2026 and 1.4.2026.
Cross-examination of 1st Judgment debtor on 1.7.2025
9. The 1st judgment debtor stated that she provided an inventory of the estate’s assets and liabilities. However, she admitted that she did not provide the record of shares. She stated that it was because the succession process was difficult.
10. The 1st judgment debtor stated that the deceased’s former partner, the 2nd judgment debtor, Michael Robert Karanja who was left to run the 3rd judgment debtor is living in Kenya. She stated that the 2nd judgment debtor also ought to settle his part of the decretal sum. She stated that she was willing to pay the deceased’s portion.
11. The 1st judgment debtor confirmed that the succession process was ongoing. She however claimed that it would be difficult to set aside any property for settlement of the decretal sum as everything is in the process of being transferred.
12. She admitted that she did not comply with order 2.
13. She stated that she did not include the decretal sum because it was not a debt yet as the case was ongoing. However, she acknowledged that the succession cause was commenced after the award was published.
14. Mr. Allen highlighted that the 1st judgment debtor substituted her late husband in the matter before the arbitrator.
Analysis and Determination
1. The 1st judgment debtor’s main arguments is that the sale of shares or attachment and sale of any property is premature because the liability has not been apportioned.
2. The 1st judgment debtor argued that the arbitrator did not find the judgment debtors jointly and severally liable. She highlighted that the arbitrator clearly indicated that the judgment debtors would be jointly liable.
3. I have read the award and the decree. Both reflect that the liability of the judgment debtors was joint and several.
4. In the operative award section at page 66 of the award, the arbitrator stated that the respondents shall pay and that the respondents shall jointly pay the 2nd and 3rd claimants.
5. The arbitrator did not apportion liability among the judgment debtors. He also did not state that each judgment debtor was liable for a specified amount.
6. Therefore, the liability is joint.
7. The legal effect of joint and several liability is that each judgment debtor is liable for the whole of the decretal sum. Therefore, the decree holder is at liberty to recover the entire amount from any one or more of them until the decree is fully satisfied. Thus, there is no requirement that the decree holder first apportion liability among the judgment debtors before commencing execution.
8. The decree holders are entitled to proceed with the execution.
Sale of shares
9. The CDSC Account number 5640 in the name of the 1st judgment debtor was previously frozen by the order of the court of 18.7.2023.
10. The purpose of the freezing order was to preserve the assets.
11. The court may authorise sale of shares through a broker. Order 22 Rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
12. Prayer 5 in the first application dated 21.5.2025 on sale of shares is merited.
Attachment of immovable property
13. Order 22 Rule 48 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that: -
“(1) Where the property to be attached is immovable, the attachment shall be made by an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from transferring or charging the property in any way, and all persons from taking any benefit from such purported transfer or charge, and the attachment shall be complete and effective upon registration of a copy of the prohibitory order or inhibition against the title to the property.
14. The guiding principles are that the decree holder ought to establish that it has a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by damages and that the balance of convenience tilts in their favour. Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
15. Further, the decree holder ought to show that the judgment debtor intends to steal a march. Slok Construction Limited v Beverly Lilonde Holdings Limited; Development Bank of Kenya Limited (Proposed Interested Party) [2025] KEHC 12658 (KLR)
16. From the evidence, the 1st judgment debtor is simply feigning imagined legal hurdles to avoid payment of the debt. I also find that the decree holder has established the requisite conditions for the grant of the orders sought.
17. Prayers 6 and 7 of the application dated 3.7.2024 are merited.
Contempt of court
18. The decree holders contended that the 1st judgment debtor is in contempt of the court’s orders for disobeying the court orders of 18.7.2023, by failing to produce bank statements to conceal the amounts therein, she admitted that she sold Nairobi/Block126/555 for Kshs. 30 Million to cater for domestic needs, she admitted that she was in the process of transferring various properties in Nairobi and has transferred Kajiado properties, she admitted that shares in the deceased’s CDSC account were transferred to beneficiaries and that after distribution of all assets and liabilities there was nothing left to satisfy the decretal amount.
19. The 1st judgment debtor submitted that the prayers no.s 7 and 8 for punishment for contempt are spent. She asserted that she demonstrated during cross examination that the execution of the deceased’s estate was lawful and that she was not in contempt of the orders of 18.7.2023.
20. The elements that must be established to make a case for contempt of court were highlighted in the literary work of Contempt in Modern New Zealand, as follows: -
“The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases which is higher than civil cases) that: -
“(1) The terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant;
(2) The defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order;
(3) The defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and
(4) The defendant’s conduct was deliberate.”
21. The record shows that the deceased died testate on 7.7.2020. The award is dated 19.4.2021. The decree is dated 21.3.2024.
22. The 1st judgment debtor admitted that the succession commenced after the award.
23. Mr. Allen pointed out that the 1st judgment debtor substituted her late husband in the matter before the arbitrator.
24. The 1st judgment debtor cannot be heard to say that the debt was omitted from the succession process because it had not crystallized.
Order of 18.7.2023
25. The court issued orders restraining the 1st judgment debtors from transferring shares in the name of the late John Njoroge Keige CDS Account no. 5460. It also issued an order restraining the 1st judgment debtor from intermeddling or transferring monies in the bank accounts and other movable and immovable assets of the deceased. It further ordered to produce, full inventory or assets and liabilities, full inventory of bank accounts, full and accurate account of the completed administration filed in succession court within 30 days.
26. According to the admissions by the 1st judgment debtor during cross-examination, she is simply feigning imagined legal hurdles to circumvent court orders issued against her. She was aware of the orders but deliberately disobeyed them. Thus, I find that she is in contempt of the court’s orders.
Conclusions and orders
27. In conclusion, the decree holders’ applications dated 3.7.2024 and 21.5.2025 are allowed in the following terms: -
(1) The 1st judgment debtor shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this ruling, pay the decretal sum together with any accrued interest and costs from the assets of the deceased's estate.
(2) In default of compliance with Order 1 above, the decree holders shall be at liberty to attach and sell such assets of the deceased's estate as are sufficient to satisfy the decretal sum, including any property found to have been unlawfully transferred or transmitted to defeat the arbitral award, in accordance with the law.
(3) The specified stockbrokers are hereby authorized to sell the shares held in the deceased's CDSC Account No. 5460, which were frozen pursuant to the order of 18.7.2023. The Central Depository & Settlement Corporation shall forthwith lift the freezing orders to the extent necessary to facilitate the sale, and the net proceeds of sale, after deduction of the stockbrokers' lawful commission and other lawful charges, shall be paid to the decree holders in partial or full satisfaction of the decree.
(4) The 1st judgment debtor is hereby found to be in contempt of the orders of this court. However, the court shall defer the imposition of sentence and afford the executor a final opportunity to purge the contempt by complying with Order (1) above within fourteen (14) days of the date of this ruling.
(5) Should the 1st judgment debtor fail to purge the contempt within the period specified in Order 4, the executor shall appear before this court on a date to be fixed by the Deputy Registrar for mitigation and sentencing for contempt, whereupon the court shall consider the appropriate sanction, including imprisonment, a fine, or both.
(6) Costs of the applications are awarded to the decree holders.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi through Microsoft Teams online application this 30th day of July 2026
-------------------
F. Gikonyo M
In the presence of: -
Nadio for Gichuhi for Decree Holder
Ms. Lagat/Omiti for 1st Judgment Debtor
CA- Ivan/Aggrey