'1. The Application that is before the Court for determination is the Application dated 23.4.2025.
2. It is the Applicant’s case that the decree holder proceeded to proclaim the its assets illegally.
3. It is further the Applicant''s case that it was not party to the suit that the proclamation is anchored in.
4. As such the Applicant argues that the decree holders cannot execute the decree against it by purporting to proclaim the Applicant’s assets.
5. It is for the Applicant’s case that the assets that are the subject of the proclamation actually belonged to it before the judgment which status hasn''t changed.
6. The Applicant argues that it is suffering prejudice as a result of the wrongful proclamation.
7. The court has looked at the response that has been filed by the Respondent.
8. It is of interest to note that the Respondent has no problem with the Application being granted since they confirm that they extracted the impugned proclamation, erroneously against the Applicant and that they recalled the same upon realizing the mistake that they had made.
9. The application has merit.
Who shall bear the costs:
10. In Joseph Oduor Anode v. Kenya Red Cross Society, Nairobi High Court Civil Suit No. 66 of 2009; [2012] eKLR Odunga, J. thus observed:
“…whereas this Court has the discretion when awarding costs, that discretion must, as usual, be exercised judicially. The first point of reference, with respect to the exercise of discretion is the guiding principles provided under the law. In matters of costs, the general rule as adumbrated in the aforesaid statute [the Civil Procedure Act] is that costs follow the event unless the court is satisfied otherwise. That satisfaction must, however, be patent on record. In other words, where the Court decides not to follow the general principle, the Court is enjoined to give reasons for not doing so. In my view it is the failure to follow the general principle without reasons that would amount to arbitrary exercise of discretion …” [emphasis supplied].
11. On cost this court has taken note of the conduct of the decree holders in that they made an effort to retrieve proclamation when they realized that there was a mistake.
12. Ordinary costs of follow the event. Owing to the conduct of the decree holders, this court finds justification in departing from the cardinal rule that costs to follow the event.
Determination;
13. This court finds that the Application is meritorious and in the circumstances the court proceeds to grant the order as prayed.
Order:
The Application is allowed with no order orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of October 2025.
'
2. It is the Applicant’s case that the decree holder proceeded to proclaim the its assets illegally.
3. It is further the Applicant''s case that it was not party to the suit that the proclamation is anchored in.
4. As such the Applicant argues that the decree holders cannot execute the decree against it by purporting to proclaim the Applicant’s assets.
5. It is for the Applicant’s case that the assets that are the subject of the proclamation actually belonged to it before the judgment which status hasn''t changed.
6. The Applicant argues that it is suffering prejudice as a result of the wrongful proclamation.
7. The court has looked at the response that has been filed by the Respondent.
8. It is of interest to note that the Respondent has no problem with the Application being granted since they confirm that they extracted the impugned proclamation, erroneously against the Applicant and that they recalled the same upon realizing the mistake that they had made.
9. The application has merit.
Who shall bear the costs:
10. In Joseph Oduor Anode v. Kenya Red Cross Society, Nairobi High Court Civil Suit No. 66 of 2009; [2012] eKLR Odunga, J. thus observed:
“…whereas this Court has the discretion when awarding costs, that discretion must, as usual, be exercised judicially. The first point of reference, with respect to the exercise of discretion is the guiding principles provided under the law. In matters of costs, the general rule as adumbrated in the aforesaid statute [the Civil Procedure Act] is that costs follow the event unless the court is satisfied otherwise. That satisfaction must, however, be patent on record. In other words, where the Court decides not to follow the general principle, the Court is enjoined to give reasons for not doing so. In my view it is the failure to follow the general principle without reasons that would amount to arbitrary exercise of discretion …” [emphasis supplied].
11. On cost this court has taken note of the conduct of the decree holders in that they made an effort to retrieve proclamation when they realized that there was a mistake.
12. Ordinary costs of follow the event. Owing to the conduct of the decree holders, this court finds justification in departing from the cardinal rule that costs to follow the event.
Determination;
13. This court finds that the Application is meritorious and in the circumstances the court proceeds to grant the order as prayed.
Order:
The Application is allowed with no order orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of October 2025.
'