Ruling:
1. I have considered the Chamber Summons dated 13th October 2023 together with the affidavits sworn in support and in reply to the said application, and the submission of counsel.
2. Based on the reasons on the face of the application, and as submitted by counsel, I am persuaded that an order absolute ought to issue against the 1st Garnishee for the total amount held by the Judgment Debtor in the account held in the judgment debtors name, namely the account: 1269274147 in terms of prayer no. 3.
3. I am of the view that the fees of the advocates of the Judgment Debtor ought not to be paid out of the said account, and do not rank in priority with the Decree holder.
4. I am also persuaded that the assets held as security by the bank, the 1st Garnishee, in relation to the loan facility said to be outstanding, and outlined at clause 8 of the loan agreement attached to the replying affidavit of the 1st Garnishee and marked as exhibit RK 2 does not include the account of the judgment debtor, which is the subject matter of the present application. All assets secured for the purpose of the facility are identified in the said agreement, and I do not find that the said account in among them.
5. In sum, the upshot is that I am satisfied that the application is with merit.
6. Prayer no 4 is accordingly also granted.
7. Finally, I place on record that counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. Michuki, had not sought leave to appear on record (after judgment) as is required under the Civil Procedure Rules at the time of the hearing of the present application, and accordingly, the applicant protested to his audience, which this court agreed with, on the basis he was not properly on record. Counsel was not heard for that reason.
1. I have considered the Chamber Summons dated 13th October 2023 together with the affidavits sworn in support and in reply to the said application, and the submission of counsel.
2. Based on the reasons on the face of the application, and as submitted by counsel, I am persuaded that an order absolute ought to issue against the 1st Garnishee for the total amount held by the Judgment Debtor in the account held in the judgment debtors name, namely the account: 1269274147 in terms of prayer no. 3.
3. I am of the view that the fees of the advocates of the Judgment Debtor ought not to be paid out of the said account, and do not rank in priority with the Decree holder.
4. I am also persuaded that the assets held as security by the bank, the 1st Garnishee, in relation to the loan facility said to be outstanding, and outlined at clause 8 of the loan agreement attached to the replying affidavit of the 1st Garnishee and marked as exhibit RK 2 does not include the account of the judgment debtor, which is the subject matter of the present application. All assets secured for the purpose of the facility are identified in the said agreement, and I do not find that the said account in among them.
5. In sum, the upshot is that I am satisfied that the application is with merit.
6. Prayer no 4 is accordingly also granted.
7. Finally, I place on record that counsel for the 2nd Respondent, Mr. Michuki, had not sought leave to appear on record (after judgment) as is required under the Civil Procedure Rules at the time of the hearing of the present application, and accordingly, the applicant protested to his audience, which this court agreed with, on the basis he was not properly on record. Counsel was not heard for that reason.