REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MARSABIT
JUDICAL REVIEW MISC NO E003 OF 2026
ETURI NUOBONGIO ……………..……………………..….... APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE……………….………………… RESPONDENT
AND
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK KENYA LTD……………. GARNISHEE
RULING
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The application before the court for determination is the Notice of Motion application dated 1 st September 2026 brought pursuant to provisions of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 23 & Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and all other enabling provision of law. The Applicant seeks for orders that;
a) Spent
b) spent
c) Spent
d) THAT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK KENYA LTD, the said Garnishee, to attend court to show cause why the said Garnishee should not pay the applicant/decree holder the sum of Kshs.5,000,000.00/=, or its equivalent in Kenya shillings, being the decretal amount in the accounts operated by the judgment debtor in the Garnishee’s various branches.
e) THAT the Honourbale court does issue a Garnishee Order absolute against STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD- the Garnishee herein, in respect to Account number 0104433037411 and 8708033037400, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the Respondent/Judgment debtor be attached to settle and/or satisfy the outstanding balance of Kshs.5,000,000.00 or its equivalent in Kenya shillings, being the amount in respect of which judgment was entered in favour of the Ex Parte Applicant/Decree-Holder.
f) THAT costs of this Application be borne by the respondent/Judgment debtor.
2. The said application is supported by the ground stated on the face of the said application and the attached supporting affidavit dated 1 st September 2026, sworn by the applicant who deponed that this court did enter judgment in their favour on 30.06.2026 for the sum of Kshs.5,000,000.00/= plus costs and interest. Despite demand, the said sum remained unpaid. It had also come to his knowledge that the Respondent/Judgment debtor operated the aforementioned bank accounts at Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd and unless the amounts in the said account were attached, there was high risk that respondent would move/withdraw the said amounts to their loss and detriment and thus urged the court to grant the orders sought to enable the deceased family to enjoy the fruits of the judgment passed.
B. THE RESPONSES
3. The respondent relied on the replying affidavit of its legal officer, one Mr Gideon Mutai dated 14 th September 2026, to oppose this application. He deponed that the respondent was a government Agent generally mandated with the duty of conservation and management of wildlife for the benefit of the public, and to undertake its mandate, they would receive funds as maybe approved and allocated to it by the national assembly as part of the budgetary process.
4. Section 32(1) of the Government Proceedings Act provided that where there is any expenditure to be incurred by or on behalf of the Government by reason of the said Act, then such expenditure would be defrayed out of monies provided by the National Assembly. The monies held in the two garnisheed accounts Number 0104433037411 and 8708033037400 were operational accounts through which public funds appropriated by the National assembly for discharge of its mandate were held and thus any garnishee order absolute issued against the said accounts would adversely interfere with their public Mandate.
5. It was also their contention that the garnishee order absolute could also not issue as they, being a government entity could not be attached in execution of a decree, as that would run contra to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act , which required a decree holder to obtain a certificate of order against the government, before commencing execution. Finally, the respondent also averred that the orders sought did not fall within the preview of Order 23 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules , as they were not orders for a debt due or claimed to be due from the judgment debtor to the Decree holder.
6. The respondent thus urged the court to find that the execution proceeding initiated were improper and be pleased to dismiss the same with costs.
7. The Garnishee on their part, relied on the Replying Affidavit dated 9 th September 2026, sworn by of one Ms Diana Rose Okumu, the Senior relationship Manager-Financial Institutions Manager. She confirmed that indeed the respondent was their client and held sufficient funds on account Number 0104433037411 to cover for the decretal sum. They were willing to release the same and also requested that a further Kshs.40,000/= be deducted to cater for their costs of the garnishee proceedings.
C. PARTIES SUBMISSIONS
(i) The Respondent’s Submissions
8. The respondent relied on their submissions dated 15 th September 2026, where they reiterated that the respondent was a government agency established by an Act of parliament, with the overall mandate to conserve and manage wildlife in Kenya, and the said functions were supervised and overseen by the Ministry of Tourism and wildlife, especially in matters to do with compensation for claims resulting from Human wildlife conflicts.
9. The respondent pointed to sections 14- (Sources of funds of the service); Section 7(e)- (collection of revenue levies and charges due to the government from wildlife; Section 24-(The wildlife compensation scheme) and section 25(1),(2) &(3)- (Compensation) of the Wildlife conservation and management Act, (Cap 376)(WCMA) stressing that they were a government agency and thus could not be attached without the applicant complying with provisions of Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act . Reliance was also placed in the case of Five-star Agencies Limited Vs National Land Commission; Kenya National Highways Authority (Intended Respondent); National Bank of Kenya (Garnishee), (Civil Case 445 of 2014),(2023) KEELC 16631(KLR), Where it was held that if a department of government is transferred to a corporation then it becomes an instrumentality or agency of the government.
10. Further reliance was placed in the case of Republic Vs Kenya wildlife services & 2 Others; Mashudi & Another ( Ex Parte Applicants) , Where the court cited with authority the case of Republic Vs Town clerk Kisumu Municipality, Ex parte East African Engineering Consultants (2007)KEHC 147, where the court discussed execution process under judicial review proceedings and it held that execution as known under the Civil Procedure process was not contemplated under the Law Reform Act, and this included garnishee proceedings.
11. On the second point, the respondent urged the court to find that the monies held in their garnisheed accounts were for general operations and not for purpose of compensation under the wildlife compensation fund as set up under Section 24 of WCMA . The law was that it was the parent ministry to issue payments for compensation and thus urged the court to dismiss the garnishee proceedings.
(ii ) The Applicants submissions .
12. The Applicants on their part pointed out to the court that the issue of whether the respondent was a government agency within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act, had been litigated and determined by the court of Appeal and the High court. Refence was made to several cases including Masha Vs Kenya Wildlife Service; Standard chartered Bank & Another (Garnishee) (Tribunal Appeal No 37 of 2020),(2023) Kenet 488 KLR, Bob Thompson Dickens Ngobi Vs Kenya Ports Authority & Others (2017) KEHC 627 (KLR) Ngayau Mutia & Another Vs Kenya Petroleum Refineries Limited (2020) KEHC 5742 & Merry Elly Neda & Another Vrs Kenya wildlife service; Kenya commercial Bank Limited (Garnishee) Misc Application E003 of 2024), (2025) KEHC 6140(KLR).
13. Similarly on the second issue raised as to whether garnishee proceedings were available and/or applicable in judicial review matters, it was the applicant’s contention that having established that the respondent was not a department of government, it was open on them to proceed with execution in the normal manner as prescribed under the Civil Procedure Rules. Reliance was placed in the case of Kenya National Highways Authority Vrs Ahmed Nassir Maalim Abdullahi (2021) eKLR and Blue shield Insurance Company Limited Vs County Government of Mombasa; National Bank of Kenya and Another (Garnishee), (2019) Eklr , for emphasis.
14. The Appellant thus urged the court to find that their application was merited and be pleased to allow the same with costs.
(iii) The Garnishee’s Submissions
15. The garnishee, through their counsel on record orally indicated to court that they would not file any submissions and would abide by the ruling delivered. They only urged the court to award them costs of the said application assessed at Ksh.40,000/=.
D. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
16. The court has considered all the pleading filed and find that the issues for determination are ; whether the respondent is a government agency immune from attachment as provided for under the Government proceedings Act, Whether the garnishee order should be made absolute and who should bear the costs of the said Application.
17. The issue of whether the respondent is a government agency and protected from execution within the meaning of provision of Section 21 of the Government proceedings Act , has been litigated on severally before the high court and the court of Appeal and it has been unequivocally held that it is not a government agency or government department within the meaning of the said Act and are therefore subject to execution by way of Garnishee proceedings. See Masha Vs Kenya Wildlife Service; Standard chartered Bank & Another (Garnishee) (Tribunal Appeal No 37 of 2020),(2023) where it was held that Kenya wildlife service, as established under Section 6(2) of the wildlife conservation and Management Act, 2013 , is a state corporation clothed with corporate personality and has the capacity to sue and be sued in its corporate name.
18. The above contention has also been severally upheld in other persuasive cases including Merry Elly Neda & Another Vrs Kenya wildlife service; Kenya commercial Bank Limited (Garnishee) Misc Application E003 of 2024), (2025) KEHC 6140(KLR), Oguna & Another Vs Kenya Wildlife service; KCB Bank Ltd (Garnishee) Judicial review Misc Application E002 of 2024),(2025) KEHC 6074 (KLR) , Lodwar HCJR E003/2024 Dongol Eleman Kokoi Vs Kenya wildlife service and County wildlife compensation Committee, Turkana & another , Narok HCJR E002/2024 Salonik Murunya Parmuai Vs Kenya Wildlife service and County wildlife compensation Committee & 1 Another.
19. On the second issue as to whether garnishee proceedings can be instituted in judicial review matters, it is my holding that both proceedings are provided for under the Civil Procedure Rules. If the drafters of the said rules had the intention of excluding garnishee proceedings from judicial review matters, the said rules would have expressly stated so, which is not the case. This position was also confirmed in the case of Blue shield Insurance Company Vs County Government of Mombasa; National Bank of Kenya and Another (Garnishee) (2019) eKLR , where it was held that;
“In light of Article 159(2),(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution of kenya 2010, I am of the view that both judicial review and garnishee proceedings are procedures of execution of a decree.”
E. DISPOSITION
20. I do therefore find that the Garnishee Application dated 1 st September 2026 has merit and the same is allowed in terms of prayer (5) and (6) of the said Application.
21. Both the Applicant and Garnishee will be paid costs of Kshs.40,000/= each from the Garnished Account.
22. It is so Ordered.
READ, SIGNED, and DELIVERED virtually at MARSABIT on this … 17th …………. day of SEPTEMBER 2026.
FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL
JUDGE
Delivered on the virtual platform, Team this …17th……day of MAY 2026.
In the presence of : -
………………………N/A………………………………..Applicant
………………………N/A………………………………. Respondent
………………………JARSO……………………………….Court Assistant
MARSABIT HCJRMISC E002 OF 20262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MARSABIT
JUDICAL REVIEW MISC NO E003 OF 2026
ETURI NUOBONGIO ……………..……………………..….... APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE……………….………………… RESPONDENT
AND
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK KENYA LTD……………. GARNISHEE
RULING
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The application before the court for determination is the Notice of Motion application dated 1 st September 2026 brought pursuant to provisions of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 23 & Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and all other enabling provision of law. The Applicant seeks for orders that;
a) Spent
b) spent
c) Spent
d) THAT STANDARD CHARTERED BANK KENYA LTD, the said Garnishee, to attend court to show cause why the said Garnishee should not pay the applicant/decree holder the sum of Kshs.5,000,000.00/=, or its equivalent in Kenya shillings, being the decretal amount in the accounts operated by the judgment debtor in the Garnishee’s various branches.
e) THAT the Honourbale court does issue a Garnishee Order absolute against STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD- the Garnishee herein, in respect to Account number 0104433037411 and 8708033037400, ordering that all monies held to the credit of the Respondent/Judgment debtor be attached to settle and/or satisfy the outstanding balance of Kshs.5,000,000.00 or its equivalent in Kenya shillings, being the amount in respect of which judgment was entered in favour of the Ex Parte Applicant/Decree-Holder.
f) THAT costs of this Application be borne by the respondent/Judgment debtor.
2. The said application is supported by the ground stated on the face of the said application and the attached supporting affidavit dated 1 st September 2026, sworn by the applicant who deponed that this court did enter judgment in their favour on 30.06.2026 for the sum of Kshs.5,000,000.00/= plus costs and interest. Despite demand, the said sum remained unpaid. It had also come to his knowledge that the Respondent/Judgment debtor operated the aforementioned bank accounts at Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd and unless the amounts in the said account were attached, there was high risk that respondent would move/withdraw the said amounts to their loss and detriment and thus urged the court to grant the orders sought to enable the deceased family to enjoy the fruits of the judgment passed.
B. THE RESPONSES
3. The respondent relied on the replying affidavit of its legal officer, one Mr Gideon Mutai dated 14 th September 2026, to oppose this application. He deponed that the respondent was a government Agent generally mandated with the duty of conservation and management of wildlife for the benefit of the public, and to undertake its mandate, they would receive funds as maybe approved and allocated to it by the national assembly as part of the budgetary process.
4. Section 32(1) of the Government Proceedings Act provided that where there is any expenditure to be incurred by or on behalf of the Government by reason of the said Act, then such expenditure would be defrayed out of monies provided by the National Assembly. The monies held in the two garnisheed accounts Number 0104433037411 and 8708033037400 were operational accounts through which public funds appropriated by the National assembly for discharge of its mandate were held and thus any garnishee order absolute issued against the said accounts would adversely interfere with their public Mandate.
5. It was also their contention that the garnishee order absolute could also not issue as they, being a government entity could not be attached in execution of a decree, as that would run contra to Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act , which required a decree holder to obtain a certificate of order against the government, before commencing execution. Finally, the respondent also averred that the orders sought did not fall within the preview of Order 23 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules , as they were not orders for a debt due or claimed to be due from the judgment debtor to the Decree holder.
6. The respondent thus urged the court to find that the execution proceeding initiated were improper and be pleased to dismiss the same with costs.
7. The Garnishee on their part, relied on the Replying Affidavit dated 9 th September 2026, sworn by of one Ms Diana Rose Okumu, the Senior relationship Manager-Financial Institutions Manager. She confirmed that indeed the respondent was their client and held sufficient funds on account Number 0104433037411 to cover for the decretal sum. They were willing to release the same and also requested that a further Kshs.40,000/= be deducted to cater for their costs of the garnishee proceedings.
C. PARTIES SUBMISSIONS
(i) The Respondent’s Submissions
8. The respondent relied on their submissions dated 15 th September 2026, where they reiterated that the respondent was a government agency established by an Act of parliament, with the overall mandate to conserve and manage wildlife in Kenya, and the said functions were supervised and overseen by the Ministry of Tourism and wildlife, especially in matters to do with compensation for claims resulting from Human wildlife conflicts.
9. The respondent pointed to sections 14- (Sources of funds of the service); Section 7(e)- (collection of revenue levies and charges due to the government from wildlife; Section 24-(The wildlife compensation scheme) and section 25(1),(2) &(3)- (Compensation) of the Wildlife conservation and management Act, (Cap 376)(WCMA) stressing that they were a government agency and thus could not be attached without the applicant complying with provisions of Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act . Reliance was also placed in the case of Five-star Agencies Limited Vs National Land Commission; Kenya National Highways Authority (Intended Respondent); National Bank of Kenya (Garnishee), (Civil Case 445 of 2014),(2023) KEELC 16631(KLR), Where it was held that if a department of government is transferred to a corporation then it becomes an instrumentality or agency of the government.
10. Further reliance was placed in the case of Republic Vs Kenya wildlife services & 2 Others; Mashudi & Another ( Ex Parte Applicants) , Where the court cited with authority the case of Republic Vs Town clerk Kisumu Municipality, Ex parte East African Engineering Consultants (2007)KEHC 147, where the court discussed execution process under judicial review proceedings and it held that execution as known under the Civil Procedure process was not contemplated under the Law Reform Act, and this included garnishee proceedings.
11. On the second point, the respondent urged the court to find that the monies held in their garnisheed accounts were for general operations and not for purpose of compensation under the wildlife compensation fund as set up under Section 24 of WCMA . The law was that it was the parent ministry to issue payments for compensation and thus urged the court to dismiss the garnishee proceedings.
(ii ) The Applicants submissions .
12. The Applicants on their part pointed out to the court that the issue of whether the respondent was a government agency within the meaning of the Government Proceedings Act, had been litigated and determined by the court of Appeal and the High court. Refence was made to several cases including Masha Vs Kenya Wildlife Service; Standard chartered Bank & Another (Garnishee) (Tribunal Appeal No 37 of 2020),(2023) Kenet 488 KLR, Bob Thompson Dickens Ngobi Vs Kenya Ports Authority & Others (2017) KEHC 627 (KLR) Ngayau Mutia & Another Vs Kenya Petroleum Refineries Limited (2020) KEHC 5742 & Merry Elly Neda & Another Vrs Kenya wildlife service; Kenya commercial Bank Limited (Garnishee) Misc Application E003 of 2024), (2025) KEHC 6140(KLR).
13. Similarly on the second issue raised as to whether garnishee proceedings were available and/or applicable in judicial review matters, it was the applicant’s contention that having established that the respondent was not a department of government, it was open on them to proceed with execution in the normal manner as prescribed under the Civil Procedure Rules. Reliance was placed in the case of Kenya National Highways Authority Vrs Ahmed Nassir Maalim Abdullahi (2021) eKLR and Blue shield Insurance Company Limited Vs County Government of Mombasa; National Bank of Kenya and Another (Garnishee), (2019) Eklr , for emphasis.
14. The Appellant thus urged the court to find that their application was merited and be pleased to allow the same with costs.
(iii) The Garnishee’s Submissions
15. The garnishee, through their counsel on record orally indicated to court that they would not file any submissions and would abide by the ruling delivered. They only urged the court to award them costs of the said application assessed at Ksh.40,000/=.
D. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
16. The court has considered all the pleading filed and find that the issues for determination are ; whether the respondent is a government agency immune from attachment as provided for under the Government proceedings Act, Whether the garnishee order should be made absolute and who should bear the costs of the said Application.
17. The issue of whether the respondent is a government agency and protected from execution within the meaning of provision of Section 21 of the Government proceedings Act , has been litigated on severally before the high court and the court of Appeal and it has been unequivocally held that it is not a government agency or government department within the meaning of the said Act and are therefore subject to execution by way of Garnishee proceedings. See Masha Vs Kenya Wildlife Service; Standard chartered Bank & Another (Garnishee) (Tribunal Appeal No 37 of 2020),(2023) where it was held that Kenya wildlife service, as established under Section 6(2) of the wildlife conservation and Management Act, 2013 , is a state corporation clothed with corporate personality and has the capacity to sue and be sued in its corporate name.
18. The above contention has also been severally upheld in other persuasive cases including Merry Elly Neda & Another Vrs Kenya wildlife service; Kenya commercial Bank Limited (Garnishee) Misc Application E003 of 2024), (2025) KEHC 6140(KLR), Oguna & Another Vs Kenya Wildlife service; KCB Bank Ltd (Garnishee) Judicial review Misc Application E002 of 2024),(2025) KEHC 6074 (KLR) , Lodwar HCJR E003/2024 Dongol Eleman Kokoi Vs Kenya wildlife service and County wildlife compensation Committee, Turkana & another , Narok HCJR E002/2024 Salonik Murunya Parmuai Vs Kenya Wildlife service and County wildlife compensation Committee & 1 Another.
19. On the second issue as to whether garnishee proceedings can be instituted in judicial review matters, it is my holding that both proceedings are provided for under the Civil Procedure Rules. If the drafters of the said rules had the intention of excluding garnishee proceedings from judicial review matters, the said rules would have expressly stated so, which is not the case. This position was also confirmed in the case of Blue shield Insurance Company Vs County Government of Mombasa; National Bank of Kenya and Another (Garnishee) (2019) eKLR , where it was held that;
“In light of Article 159(2),(d) and Article 48 of the Constitution of kenya 2010, I am of the view that both judicial review and garnishee proceedings are procedures of execution of a decree.”
E. DISPOSITION
20. I do therefore find that the Garnishee Application dated 1 st September 2026 has merit and the same is allowed in terms of prayer (5) and (6) of the said Application.
21. Both the Applicant and Garnishee will be paid costs of Kshs.40,000/= each from the Garnished Account.
22. It is so Ordered.
READ, SIGNED, and DELIVERED virtually at MARSABIT on this … 17th …………. day of SEPTEMBER 2026.
FRANCIS RAYOLA OLEL
JUDGE
Delivered on the virtual platform, Team this …17th……day of MAY 2026.
In the presence of : -
………………………N/A………………………………..Applicant
………………………N/A………………………………. Respondent
………………………JARSO……………………………….Court Assistant
MARSABIT HCJRMISC E002 OF 20262