A. INTRODUCTION
1. This ruling addresses the Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2025, where the Applicants are requesting garnishee orders against the 1st and 2nd Garnishees to recover a decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000, resulting from a judgment by this Court.
2. The application is based on Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and other relevant legal provisions.
B. THE APPLICATION
3. The Applicants seek the following:
a. A garnishee order nisi to attach funds held by the Garnishees in accounts belonging to the Respondent;
b. A garnishee order absolute directing payment of the decretal sum;
c. Costs associated with this application.
4. They support their application with an affidavit from Malaki Onyango Abuoda, stating that:
i. Judgment was awarded to them for Kshs. 5,000,000;
ii. This amount remains unpaid;
iii. The Respondent has accounts with the Garnishees;
iv. There is a genuine concern that the Respondent may withdraw funds unless restrained.
C. RESPONSES
(i) Respondent’s Opposition
5. The Respondent opposes the application on several grounds:
a. They argue that garnishee proceedings do not apply in judicial review cases;
b. They claim judicial review is a distinct category of law;
c. They assert that this Court lacks the authority to issue execution orders in such cases;
d. They contend that the application is fundamentally flawed.
(ii) Garnishees’ Responses
6. The 1st Garnishee, KCB Bank Kenya Ltd, confirmed that the Respondent has an account (details withheld), but it shows no or insufficient funds.
7. The 2nd Garnishee, Standard Chartered Bank Ltd, confirmed that the Respondent has an account (details withheld) with sufficient funds exceeding Kshs. 5,000,000 to satisfy the decretal sum.
D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
8. The following key issues need to be resolved:
i. Are garnishee proceedings applicable in judicial review cases?
ii. Is the Respondent entitled to protection under the Government Proceedings Act?
iii. Are the Applicants justified in requesting a garnishee order absolute?
E. ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Applicability of Garnishee Proceedings in Judicial Review
9. The Respondent claims that judicial review is a unique jurisdiction that prohibits execution under the Civil Procedure Rules. This argument lacks legal backing.
10. The Wildlife Conservation and Management Act allows aggrieved parties to seek relief from the High Court, including orders to compel the performance of statutory duties.
11. When a public body like the Kenya Wildlife Service fails to meet its monetary obligations from a court order, a writ of mandamus may compel payment. While judicial review is governed by Order 53, garnishee proceedings are a recognized mode of enforcement under Order 23.
12. In the case of Olwayo v Kenya Wildlife Service; KCB Bank Ltd (Garnishee) [2025] KEHC 16871 (KLR), the Court ruled:
“A successful litigant in judicial review proceedings is entitled to enforce a decree using garnishee proceedings under Order 23.”
13. This interpretation aligns with constitutional principles, particularly:
- Article 48– the right to access justice;
- Article 159(2)(d) – the duty to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
14. Denying a successful litigant the benefits of a judgment merely because it arises from judicial review would undermine the right to justice.
15. Therefore, I conclude that garnishee proceedings can be used to enforce monetary decrees from judicial review cases.
Issue 2: Protection under the Government Proceedings Act
16. The Respondent seeks protection under the Government Proceedings Act (Cap 40).
17. However, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act establishes the Kenya Wildlife Service as a corporate entity with:
- perpetual succession;
- a common seal;
- the capacity to sue and be sued.
18. In Olwayo (supra)and similar cases, the Court confirmed:
“State corporations like the Kenya Wildlife Service are independent legal entities capable of being sued and subjected to execution.”
19. The Respondent has not demonstrated that it qualifies as:
a. Government;
b. Government department; or
c. Government officer
under the Government Proceedings Act.
20. Thus, the Respondent cannot invoke the protections of the Government Proceedings Act to evade execution.
Issue 3: Issuance of a Garnishee Order Absolute
22. The conditions for granting a garnishee order under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules have been met:
i. A valid decree exists;
ii. The decree remains unsatisfied;
iii. The Garnishee holds funds on behalf of the judgment debtor.
23. Evidence shows that the 2nd Garnishee has sufficient funds to satisfy the decree, while the 1st Garnishee has insufficient funds.
24. In National Bank of Kenya v Anaj Warehousing Ltd [2006] eKLR, the Court stated that once the necessary conditions are met, the Court is obliged to issue a garnishee order absolute.
25. Therefore, there are no legal barriers to issuing a garnishee order absolute against the 2nd Garnishee.
F. DISPOSITION
26. The Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2025 is granted and I proceed to make the following orders :
G. ORDERS
27. The Court orders as follows:
1. A Garnishee Order Absolute is issued against the 2nd Garnishee (Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd), directing it to pay Kshs. 5,000,000 to the Applicants, along with costs.
2. This amount shall be paid from Account No. 0104433037411 held by the Respondent.
3. The application against the 1st Garnishee (KCB Bank Kenya Ltd) is dismissed due to lack of funds.
4. Costs are awarded as follows:
a. Kshs. 50,000 to the Applicants, payable by the Respondent;
b. Kshs. 30,000 to the 2nd Garnishee, payable by the Respondent;
c. Kshs. 15,000 to the 1st Garnishee, payable by the Applicants.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
18.3.26
Delivered this 18th day of March 2026 in the presence of Mr. Opondo for the Ex-Parte Applicant, Miss Waluvego for the Respondent, and Miss Oduor for the Garnishees.
---
1. This ruling addresses the Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2025, where the Applicants are requesting garnishee orders against the 1st and 2nd Garnishees to recover a decretal sum of Kshs. 5,000,000, resulting from a judgment by this Court.
2. The application is based on Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and other relevant legal provisions.
B. THE APPLICATION
3. The Applicants seek the following:
a. A garnishee order nisi to attach funds held by the Garnishees in accounts belonging to the Respondent;
b. A garnishee order absolute directing payment of the decretal sum;
c. Costs associated with this application.
4. They support their application with an affidavit from Malaki Onyango Abuoda, stating that:
i. Judgment was awarded to them for Kshs. 5,000,000;
ii. This amount remains unpaid;
iii. The Respondent has accounts with the Garnishees;
iv. There is a genuine concern that the Respondent may withdraw funds unless restrained.
C. RESPONSES
(i) Respondent’s Opposition
5. The Respondent opposes the application on several grounds:
a. They argue that garnishee proceedings do not apply in judicial review cases;
b. They claim judicial review is a distinct category of law;
c. They assert that this Court lacks the authority to issue execution orders in such cases;
d. They contend that the application is fundamentally flawed.
(ii) Garnishees’ Responses
6. The 1st Garnishee, KCB Bank Kenya Ltd, confirmed that the Respondent has an account (details withheld), but it shows no or insufficient funds.
7. The 2nd Garnishee, Standard Chartered Bank Ltd, confirmed that the Respondent has an account (details withheld) with sufficient funds exceeding Kshs. 5,000,000 to satisfy the decretal sum.
D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
8. The following key issues need to be resolved:
i. Are garnishee proceedings applicable in judicial review cases?
ii. Is the Respondent entitled to protection under the Government Proceedings Act?
iii. Are the Applicants justified in requesting a garnishee order absolute?
E. ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Applicability of Garnishee Proceedings in Judicial Review
9. The Respondent claims that judicial review is a unique jurisdiction that prohibits execution under the Civil Procedure Rules. This argument lacks legal backing.
10. The Wildlife Conservation and Management Act allows aggrieved parties to seek relief from the High Court, including orders to compel the performance of statutory duties.
11. When a public body like the Kenya Wildlife Service fails to meet its monetary obligations from a court order, a writ of mandamus may compel payment. While judicial review is governed by Order 53, garnishee proceedings are a recognized mode of enforcement under Order 23.
12. In the case of Olwayo v Kenya Wildlife Service; KCB Bank Ltd (Garnishee) [2025] KEHC 16871 (KLR), the Court ruled:
“A successful litigant in judicial review proceedings is entitled to enforce a decree using garnishee proceedings under Order 23.”
13. This interpretation aligns with constitutional principles, particularly:
- Article 48– the right to access justice;
- Article 159(2)(d) – the duty to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities.
14. Denying a successful litigant the benefits of a judgment merely because it arises from judicial review would undermine the right to justice.
15. Therefore, I conclude that garnishee proceedings can be used to enforce monetary decrees from judicial review cases.
Issue 2: Protection under the Government Proceedings Act
16. The Respondent seeks protection under the Government Proceedings Act (Cap 40).
17. However, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act establishes the Kenya Wildlife Service as a corporate entity with:
- perpetual succession;
- a common seal;
- the capacity to sue and be sued.
18. In Olwayo (supra)and similar cases, the Court confirmed:
“State corporations like the Kenya Wildlife Service are independent legal entities capable of being sued and subjected to execution.”
19. The Respondent has not demonstrated that it qualifies as:
a. Government;
b. Government department; or
c. Government officer
under the Government Proceedings Act.
20. Thus, the Respondent cannot invoke the protections of the Government Proceedings Act to evade execution.
Issue 3: Issuance of a Garnishee Order Absolute
22. The conditions for granting a garnishee order under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules have been met:
i. A valid decree exists;
ii. The decree remains unsatisfied;
iii. The Garnishee holds funds on behalf of the judgment debtor.
23. Evidence shows that the 2nd Garnishee has sufficient funds to satisfy the decree, while the 1st Garnishee has insufficient funds.
24. In National Bank of Kenya v Anaj Warehousing Ltd [2006] eKLR, the Court stated that once the necessary conditions are met, the Court is obliged to issue a garnishee order absolute.
25. Therefore, there are no legal barriers to issuing a garnishee order absolute against the 2nd Garnishee.
F. DISPOSITION
26. The Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2025 is granted and I proceed to make the following orders :
G. ORDERS
27. The Court orders as follows:
1. A Garnishee Order Absolute is issued against the 2nd Garnishee (Standard Chartered Bank Kenya Ltd), directing it to pay Kshs. 5,000,000 to the Applicants, along with costs.
2. This amount shall be paid from Account No. 0104433037411 held by the Respondent.
3. The application against the 1st Garnishee (KCB Bank Kenya Ltd) is dismissed due to lack of funds.
4. Costs are awarded as follows:
a. Kshs. 50,000 to the Applicants, payable by the Respondent;
b. Kshs. 30,000 to the 2nd Garnishee, payable by the Respondent;
c. Kshs. 15,000 to the 1st Garnishee, payable by the Applicants.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
18.3.26
Delivered this 18th day of March 2026 in the presence of Mr. Opondo for the Ex-Parte Applicant, Miss Waluvego for the Respondent, and Miss Oduor for the Garnishees.
---