1. The Applicant’s motion dated 22nd April, 2026 is expressed to be brought under Article 159 of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 48 Rule (1) and (2), Order 22 Rule 49 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law and seeks the following orders:
1. THAT, in the first instance the application be certified urgent and be heard ex-parte as it seeks orders for execution of the decree herein requiring interim orders in terms of prayer two (2) below without notification/alerting the Respondent in view of other orders sought below.
2. THAT, an order of inhibition and/or prohibitory do issue against the Respondent in dealing with and/or interfering with property known as Plot LR No. 24880- Kilifi - Title 43510 – Plot No. A87 in any manner whatsoever pending issuance of prayer three hereinbelow.
3. THAT, the nature of this execution application does not require service upon the Respondent in the circumstances service of the application should be dispensed.
4. THAT, upon issuance of the prohibitory/inhibition order and registration of same on Plot LR No. 24880 – Kilifi – Title 43510 – Plot No. A87 same be deemed as an attachment of the property pursuant provisions of Order 22 Rule 48 Civil Procedure Rules.
5. THAT, an order and warrants of sale of Plot LR No. 24880 – Kilifi – Title 43510 – Plot No. A87 be issued to Double M Auctioneers for sale of the said property through public auction.
6. Such other further orders as court may deem fit to grant.
2. The court has considered the application alongside the record in Kisumu HC Misc. Application No. E110 of 2025, of which it takes judicial notice. It is common ground that the parties in both matters are identical and that the property sought to be attached and sold is the same, namely LR No. 24880 – Kilifi – Title No. 43510 – Plot No. A87.
3. The court has, in E110 of 2025, already issued a prohibitory order against the said property and authorized its sale in execution of the decree in that matter. Consequently, the property is already subject to subsisting execution orders and stands encumbered for purposes of satisfying that decree.
4. While the Applicant is undoubtedly entitled to pursue execution of the decree issued in the present file, the court is not persuaded that it would be proper, at this stage, to issue a second set of warrants of sale in respect of the same property. Such an order would duplicate an execution process that is already underway and may result in conflicting or overlapping directions concerning the same parcel of land.
5. The court bears the duty to ensure that execution proceedings are conducted in an orderly, coherent and efficient manner in accordance with the overriding objective embodied in Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act. The issuance of parallel execution orders over the same immovable property in separate proceedings between the same parties would not advance that objective.
6. In the circumstances, the court considers it prudent to defer the issuance of the orders sought pending the outcome of the execution proceedings in E110 of 2025.
7. In the event that the execution process in E110 of 2025 does not culminate in the sale of the property, or if the proceeds realized therefrom are insufficient to satisfy the decree in the present matter, the Applicant shall be at liberty to move this Court for such further or consequential orders as may then be appropriate.
8. Deferring the grant of the execution orders in this file does not extinguish the Applicant’s rights under the decree herein. Rather, it ensures that the execution process proceeds in an orderly manner and avoids the risk of inconsistent or duplicative orders in respect of property that is already under attachment and sale.
9. In view of the foregoing, no further orders shall issue at this stage, and this matter shall be deemed as closed for the time being. The Applicant shall, however, be at liberty to apply should the outcome of the execution proceedings in E110 of 2025 so necessitate.
DELIVERED (virtually), DATED & SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO.
JUDGE
APPLICANT: Ms. Achieng.
RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.
1. THAT, in the first instance the application be certified urgent and be heard ex-parte as it seeks orders for execution of the decree herein requiring interim orders in terms of prayer two (2) below without notification/alerting the Respondent in view of other orders sought below.
2. THAT, an order of inhibition and/or prohibitory do issue against the Respondent in dealing with and/or interfering with property known as Plot LR No. 24880- Kilifi - Title 43510 – Plot No. A87 in any manner whatsoever pending issuance of prayer three hereinbelow.
3. THAT, the nature of this execution application does not require service upon the Respondent in the circumstances service of the application should be dispensed.
4. THAT, upon issuance of the prohibitory/inhibition order and registration of same on Plot LR No. 24880 – Kilifi – Title 43510 – Plot No. A87 same be deemed as an attachment of the property pursuant provisions of Order 22 Rule 48 Civil Procedure Rules.
5. THAT, an order and warrants of sale of Plot LR No. 24880 – Kilifi – Title 43510 – Plot No. A87 be issued to Double M Auctioneers for sale of the said property through public auction.
6. Such other further orders as court may deem fit to grant.
2. The court has considered the application alongside the record in Kisumu HC Misc. Application No. E110 of 2025, of which it takes judicial notice. It is common ground that the parties in both matters are identical and that the property sought to be attached and sold is the same, namely LR No. 24880 – Kilifi – Title No. 43510 – Plot No. A87.
3. The court has, in E110 of 2025, already issued a prohibitory order against the said property and authorized its sale in execution of the decree in that matter. Consequently, the property is already subject to subsisting execution orders and stands encumbered for purposes of satisfying that decree.
4. While the Applicant is undoubtedly entitled to pursue execution of the decree issued in the present file, the court is not persuaded that it would be proper, at this stage, to issue a second set of warrants of sale in respect of the same property. Such an order would duplicate an execution process that is already underway and may result in conflicting or overlapping directions concerning the same parcel of land.
5. The court bears the duty to ensure that execution proceedings are conducted in an orderly, coherent and efficient manner in accordance with the overriding objective embodied in Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act. The issuance of parallel execution orders over the same immovable property in separate proceedings between the same parties would not advance that objective.
6. In the circumstances, the court considers it prudent to defer the issuance of the orders sought pending the outcome of the execution proceedings in E110 of 2025.
7. In the event that the execution process in E110 of 2025 does not culminate in the sale of the property, or if the proceeds realized therefrom are insufficient to satisfy the decree in the present matter, the Applicant shall be at liberty to move this Court for such further or consequential orders as may then be appropriate.
8. Deferring the grant of the execution orders in this file does not extinguish the Applicant’s rights under the decree herein. Rather, it ensures that the execution process proceeds in an orderly manner and avoids the risk of inconsistent or duplicative orders in respect of property that is already under attachment and sale.
9. In view of the foregoing, no further orders shall issue at this stage, and this matter shall be deemed as closed for the time being. The Applicant shall, however, be at liberty to apply should the outcome of the execution proceedings in E110 of 2025 so necessitate.
DELIVERED (virtually), DATED & SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2026.
JOE M. OMIDO.
JUDGE
APPLICANT: Ms. Achieng.
RESPONDENT: No appearance.
COURT ASSISTANTS: Mr. Ngoge & Mr. Juma.