(On the Certificate of Urgency dated 3rd August 2026)
CORUM: In the presence of Justice R. Nyakundi
Court Assistant-Ms. Lawreen & Mr. Opiyo
For the Plaintiff/Applicant- ……………………………………..
For the Defendant/Respondent ……………………………….
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Before me for consideration in the first instance is the Notice of Motion dated 3rd August 2026, brought under Rule 3(2) of the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules of the Judicature Act, Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya. The application is supported by the affidavit of RONALD ALUDA MATANYI sworn on 3rd August 2026 and is accompanied by a Certificate of Urgency of even date sworn by Mr. Hezron Abok, Advocate.
2. The application was placed before me during the court vacation for directions on certification. This ruling is therefore confined to the question of urgency and the directions consequent upon it. It does not determine the merits of any of the substantive prayers sought, which remain live for determination inter partes.
3. The threshold for certification is a modest one. The court is not at this stage concerned with whether the applicant will ultimately succeed. It asks only whether the matter is of such a character that, if it awaited the ordinary course of listing, the applicant would suffer prejudice that could not thereafter be remedied, or the intended relief would be rendered an empty formality.
4. Applying that test, I am satisfied that the application meets it. The warrants of attachment are dated 29th July 2026, and the proclamation issued in execution stipulated a period of seven days from proclamation, expiring on 4th August 2026. On the material placed before me, the applicant's motor vehicles and household goods have already been proclaimed and stand exposed to removal and sale by public auction. Where execution has moved from the stage of threat to the stage of proclamation with a stated expiry, the element of imminence is plainly established.
8. I would add that the sums claimed under the warrants have escalated considerably beyond the decretal sums. In respect of MCCC No. E191 of 2025 alone, a decretal sum of Kshs. 185,550/= has attracted taxed costs, further costs, interest and collection fees bringing the total demanded to Kshs. 261,900/=, against which movable property valued by the auctioneer in the region of Kshs. 1,200,000/= has been proclaimed. Whether that is proportionate is a matter for argument at the hearing; it is, however, a further reason why the application ought not to be left to lie.
9. On the prayer to dispense with service: prayer 1 seeks that service be dispensed with in the first instance. I am not persuaded that a case has been made out for proceeding without notice to the affected parties. The relief ultimately sought is a stay against parties who hold regular decrees of a competent court and who are entitled to be heard before their fruits of judgment are interfered with. The applicant has had notice of the proclamation since 29th July 2026 and there is nothing to suggest that short-service directions cannot adequately protect his position. That prayer is accordingly declined, and the application shall be served.
10. On the parties to be served: I raise, for the applicant's attention and without deciding the point, a matter of some practical consequence. The only respondent named on the face of these proceedings is Directline Assurance Company Limited. The judgments, decrees and warrants sought to be stayed were, however, obtained by Janet Vuyanzi Makenzi (MCCC No. E191 of 2025), Edah Kamalia (MCCC No. E193 of 2025) and Mathew Obado (MCCC No. E197 of 2025), and execution is being levied by Ekemwanya Auctioneers. Those persons are not parties to this suit. An order staying execution cannot ordinarily be made to the prejudice of decree holders who have neither been joined nor heard. I shall therefore direct that the application be served upon them, and upon the auctioneers, as interested parties, and the question of their formal joinder may be addressed at the inter partes hearing.
11. On interim relief: the applicant has sought interim stay pending the hearing of the application. Having declined to dispense with service, and the substantive prayers being ones which affect the accrued rights of the decree holders, I consider that the better course is that they be determined inter partes on an expedited basis. The abridged timelines set out below are intended to secure that.
D. ORDERS
12. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
I. The Notice of Motion dated 3rd August 2026 is hereby certified as URGENT.
II. Prayer 1 of the application, seeking that service be dispensed with in the first instance, is DECLINED.
III. The application, together with the supporting affidavit, all annextures and a copy of this ruling, shall be served upon the Defendant/Respondent, Directline Assurance Company Limited, within three (3) days of the date hereof.
IV. The said documents shall likewise be served, within the same period, upon Janet Vuyanzi Makenzi, Edah Kamalia and Mathew Obado, being the decree holders in Vihiga MCCC Nos. E191, E193 and E197 all of 2025 respectively, through their advocates on record, and upon Ekemwanya Auctioneers, as interested parties.
V. An affidavit of service shall be filed and served forthwith upon service being effected.
VI. The Respondent and any interested party wishing to oppose the application shall file and serve a replying affidavit and, if so advised, grounds of opposition, within seven (7) days of service.
VII. The applicant shall have three (3) days from service of any replying affidavit within which to file and serve a supplementary affidavit, if any.
VIII. The application shall be canvassed by way of written submissions, which the parties shall file and exchange within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof.
IX. Any party who fails to file and serve written submissions within the time limited by order VIII above shall be deemed to have elected not to file any submissions, and the court shall thereupon proceed to determine the application on the pleadings and the material on record, and without reference to the submissions of that party, without further notice to it.
X. The application shall stand retired for ruling, which ruling shall be delivered on the 28th day of August 2026.
XI. Costs of and occasioned by this application shall be in the cause.
13. Orders accordingly.
CORUM: In the presence of Justice R. Nyakundi
Court Assistant-Ms. Lawreen & Mr. Opiyo
For the Plaintiff/Applicant- ……………………………………..
For the Defendant/Respondent ……………………………….
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Before me for consideration in the first instance is the Notice of Motion dated 3rd August 2026, brought under Rule 3(2) of the High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules of the Judicature Act, Order 21 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya. The application is supported by the affidavit of RONALD ALUDA MATANYI sworn on 3rd August 2026 and is accompanied by a Certificate of Urgency of even date sworn by Mr. Hezron Abok, Advocate.
2. The application was placed before me during the court vacation for directions on certification. This ruling is therefore confined to the question of urgency and the directions consequent upon it. It does not determine the merits of any of the substantive prayers sought, which remain live for determination inter partes.
3. The threshold for certification is a modest one. The court is not at this stage concerned with whether the applicant will ultimately succeed. It asks only whether the matter is of such a character that, if it awaited the ordinary course of listing, the applicant would suffer prejudice that could not thereafter be remedied, or the intended relief would be rendered an empty formality.
4. Applying that test, I am satisfied that the application meets it. The warrants of attachment are dated 29th July 2026, and the proclamation issued in execution stipulated a period of seven days from proclamation, expiring on 4th August 2026. On the material placed before me, the applicant's motor vehicles and household goods have already been proclaimed and stand exposed to removal and sale by public auction. Where execution has moved from the stage of threat to the stage of proclamation with a stated expiry, the element of imminence is plainly established.
8. I would add that the sums claimed under the warrants have escalated considerably beyond the decretal sums. In respect of MCCC No. E191 of 2025 alone, a decretal sum of Kshs. 185,550/= has attracted taxed costs, further costs, interest and collection fees bringing the total demanded to Kshs. 261,900/=, against which movable property valued by the auctioneer in the region of Kshs. 1,200,000/= has been proclaimed. Whether that is proportionate is a matter for argument at the hearing; it is, however, a further reason why the application ought not to be left to lie.
9. On the prayer to dispense with service: prayer 1 seeks that service be dispensed with in the first instance. I am not persuaded that a case has been made out for proceeding without notice to the affected parties. The relief ultimately sought is a stay against parties who hold regular decrees of a competent court and who are entitled to be heard before their fruits of judgment are interfered with. The applicant has had notice of the proclamation since 29th July 2026 and there is nothing to suggest that short-service directions cannot adequately protect his position. That prayer is accordingly declined, and the application shall be served.
10. On the parties to be served: I raise, for the applicant's attention and without deciding the point, a matter of some practical consequence. The only respondent named on the face of these proceedings is Directline Assurance Company Limited. The judgments, decrees and warrants sought to be stayed were, however, obtained by Janet Vuyanzi Makenzi (MCCC No. E191 of 2025), Edah Kamalia (MCCC No. E193 of 2025) and Mathew Obado (MCCC No. E197 of 2025), and execution is being levied by Ekemwanya Auctioneers. Those persons are not parties to this suit. An order staying execution cannot ordinarily be made to the prejudice of decree holders who have neither been joined nor heard. I shall therefore direct that the application be served upon them, and upon the auctioneers, as interested parties, and the question of their formal joinder may be addressed at the inter partes hearing.
11. On interim relief: the applicant has sought interim stay pending the hearing of the application. Having declined to dispense with service, and the substantive prayers being ones which affect the accrued rights of the decree holders, I consider that the better course is that they be determined inter partes on an expedited basis. The abridged timelines set out below are intended to secure that.
D. ORDERS
12. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
I. The Notice of Motion dated 3rd August 2026 is hereby certified as URGENT.
II. Prayer 1 of the application, seeking that service be dispensed with in the first instance, is DECLINED.
III. The application, together with the supporting affidavit, all annextures and a copy of this ruling, shall be served upon the Defendant/Respondent, Directline Assurance Company Limited, within three (3) days of the date hereof.
IV. The said documents shall likewise be served, within the same period, upon Janet Vuyanzi Makenzi, Edah Kamalia and Mathew Obado, being the decree holders in Vihiga MCCC Nos. E191, E193 and E197 all of 2025 respectively, through their advocates on record, and upon Ekemwanya Auctioneers, as interested parties.
V. An affidavit of service shall be filed and served forthwith upon service being effected.
VI. The Respondent and any interested party wishing to oppose the application shall file and serve a replying affidavit and, if so advised, grounds of opposition, within seven (7) days of service.
VII. The applicant shall have three (3) days from service of any replying affidavit within which to file and serve a supplementary affidavit, if any.
VIII. The application shall be canvassed by way of written submissions, which the parties shall file and exchange within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof.
IX. Any party who fails to file and serve written submissions within the time limited by order VIII above shall be deemed to have elected not to file any submissions, and the court shall thereupon proceed to determine the application on the pleadings and the material on record, and without reference to the submissions of that party, without further notice to it.
X. The application shall stand retired for ruling, which ruling shall be delivered on the 28th day of August 2026.
XI. Costs of and occasioned by this application shall be in the cause.
13. Orders accordingly.