'
1. Before me is the application for contempt of court dated 19/11/2015 against First Choice and Chador Auctioneers on the ground that they had disobeyed the orders of this court made on 18/11/2025 with respect to Notice of Motion dated 17/11/2025 where the applicant sought orders:-
1) ….
2) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to stay execution of the judgments delivered in Kilungu Magistrate''s Court MCC/E. 186, 187, 188, 190, 192 & 193 all of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of this Application,
3) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to stay execution of the judgments delivered in Kilungu Magistrate''s Court MCC/E. 186, 187, 188, 190, 192 & 193 all of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of this suit,
4) THAT the Applicant be liable to pay Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs. 5,291,512/-) which amount is above the cap limit,
5) THAT there be a conditional release of the Motor Vehicles Reg. No. KCV 222P, KBH 582P and Trailers Reg. No. ZH 0831 and ZC 2827 upon the deposit and/or payment of Kenya Shillings One Million (Kshs. 1,000,000/-) to the Interested Parties Advocates Account or in this Honourable courts account.
6) THAT the balance of the amount payable by the Plaintiff/Applicant be paid in the installments of Kshs. 500,000/= until payment in full,
7) THAT AMACO do be compelled to pay the rest of the monies to the Interested Parties.
2. The court granted the prayers the prayers thus;
I allow the application as follows. Prayer 2, Prayer, 4, Prayer 5 the payment to be made is Kshs. 2 million within 45 days hereof. This is to be deposited in court or in a joint interest earning account of both counsel. In default of this the stay will lapse.
The application be served upon the Respondents and Interested parties within 7 days here respond in 14. The matter be assigned a date for directions thereafter.
3. This morning (25th November 2025) the application for contempt came for hearing. Mr. Muganda appeared for the applicant, Ms. Muema for Interested Parties.
4. Let me just say it was a long day. It turned out that that I had issued orders in HCCA 102/2024 ( RUMAN LOGISTICS LIMITED VS GEORGE KINOTI DAVID (AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF KARWITHIA) with respect to Kilungu MCC E192/2024 - sending the matter back to the subordinate court for determination of interim issues. This is what I said therein:
Court: I have perused the application and the offending orders of the subordinate court and I am not certain what the issue is. The Subordinate court issued temporary stay of execution pending he
hearing and determination of the application inter -partes. Was the court made aware of the fact that the trailers were carrying transit goods? It does not appear so to me. Even in the application before me it is mentioned in passing. It appears to me that the orders of stay suspended the attachment. If not, instead of this court dealing with that issue- (the meaning of the orders of the subordinate court) I direct that the applicant goes back to the subordinate court to address the court on the issue of the transit goods and seek review of those orders there
Order: Matter remitted back to subordinate court for mention on 18th November 2025 before the trial court to deal with the issue of the transit goods.
5. Clearly there was a problem. Interpreting these orders, and of course that affected compliance. Ms. Muema brought it out clearly pointing out that the court ought to have known what it had said in HCCA 102 of 2025 before granting the orders in HCCOMM E003 of 2025 which appear to be in contradiction. Mr. Muganda’s view was that the only issue was that Ms. Muema’s clients wanted their money. His client had demonstrated good faith by complying with the deposit order and now could the court release the m/vehicles. Ms. Muema pointed out the procedural issues
6. It was now clear that the matter Kilungu MCC E192/2024 was one of the matters in HCCOMM E003 of 2025 and it was unfortunate that the appellant in HCCA 102 of 2025 being the Plaintiff in HCCOMM E003 of 2025 appeared to be forum shopping for different orders, with different advocates. Mr. Kitindio Musembi Counsel in HCCA 102 of 2025 was not present as that matter was not coming up then.
7. After a discussion, back and forth it was agreed that the HCCOMM E003 could not continue as it was with Kilungu MCCC E192 of 2024 embedded in it while the order was subsisting sending it to the subordinate court. This was classic judicial embarrassment.
8. All is well that ends well. Having recognized the problem and in the interests of justice, that mellower of all hard stances in the justice system, Mr. Muganda and Ms. Muema gave negotiations a chance as guided by the Constitutional fiat to the Judiciary to encourage ADR. When we returned in the afternoon there was consensus: That the order in the HCCA matter could not hold effect and needed to be dealt with: In the mean time in this matter Ms. Muema conceded that the motor vehicles herein below be released upon payment of auctioneer’s fees and storage charges.
1) KCV 222p/ZH0831
2) KBH 582P/ZC2827
3) KBQ 316 K
4) KBU 077 R
9. On the issue of payments money there was divergence in proposals . Ms. Muema wants Mr. Muganda’s client to deposit ½ the decretal sum of the total Ksh 15, 575,946 that is due as security - Mr. Muganda’s position is that they have sued AMACO to pay their insured ( his client’s) Insurance claims as per the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Thirty party) Risks Act Cap 405 being the sum of Kshs. 10,320,559/95 arising out of the interested parties’ suits against the plaintiff herein in Kilungu Magistrate’s court MCC/E.186, 187, 188, 190, 192, & 193 all of 2024 wherein judgment was entered in their favour against the plaintiff as follows; Kshs. 274,995/= Kshs. 5,642,388/=, Kshs. 247,545/=, Kshs. 2,052,495 and Kshs. 1,017,495/= respectively.
10. Mr. Muganda’s client concedes that he is liable to pay the sum of 5,291,512 and has paid Kshs. 2m as directed by this court in court.
11. He proposes to pay the balance in 60 days. Ms. Muema’s client wants the money paid in 30 days.
12. The only issue for determination in the interim is how much money the applicant should pay and within what period of time.
13. I take into account that the judgments were delivered on 19/9/2025 in the subordinate court - and the interested parties are entitled to the fruits of their judgment.
14. At the same time the applicants’ motor vehicles were attached (lawfully) of course- and he will incur extra expenses of paying auctioneers fees together with storage charges.
15. What would be fair is to recognize that Interested Parties are entitled to the fruits of their judgment, the applicant he is ready and willing to pay the balance of what he concedes as demonstrated by the deposit of the Ksh 2 million was paid immediately and he has taken action to ensure that the rest is paid. Further there is the extra charges of auctioneer’s fees and storage charges .
16. The applicant expressed that the concession by Ms. Muema to have the motor vehicles released gives the applicant the opportunity to do business. It was expected that the motor vehicles would all be released (any time from now (24/11/2025 upon payment of the requite fees and charges ).
17. It is fair that the applicant pays the remainder of what accepts as his liability at the earliest: –
18. Hence - it is my view - that the balance of
19. The following orders issue:
a. A stay of execution of the judgments of the subordinate court subject of this suit to issue on the following conditions:
i. The money Ksh 2 million deposited in court be released to the applicant’s counsel forthwith for payment into a joint interest earning account of both counsel.
ii. Ksh 3, 291, 512 be deposited in the same joint interest earning account within 45 days hereof. In default the stay to lapse automatically and execution to issue
iii. Upon payment of the auctioneers’ fees and storage charges the following motor vehicles be released to the applicant .
1. KCV 222p/ZH0831
2. KBH 582P/ZC2827
3. KBQ 316 K
4. KBU 077 R
iv. Orders accordingly
20. The applicant is at liberty to engage AMACO
21. Mention in 45 days before the Deputy Registrar for Compliance.
Dated, signed and delivered via CTS on 26th November 2025.
Mumbua T. Matheka
Judge
CA Chrispol
'
1. Before me is the application for contempt of court dated 19/11/2015 against First Choice and Chador Auctioneers on the ground that they had disobeyed the orders of this court made on 18/11/2025 with respect to Notice of Motion dated 17/11/2025 where the applicant sought orders:-
1) ….
2) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to stay execution of the judgments delivered in Kilungu Magistrate''s Court MCC/E. 186, 187, 188, 190, 192 & 193 all of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of this Application,
3) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to stay execution of the judgments delivered in Kilungu Magistrate''s Court MCC/E. 186, 187, 188, 190, 192 & 193 all of 2024 pending the hearing and determination of this suit,
4) THAT the Applicant be liable to pay Kenya Shillings Five Million (Kshs. 5,291,512/-) which amount is above the cap limit,
5) THAT there be a conditional release of the Motor Vehicles Reg. No. KCV 222P, KBH 582P and Trailers Reg. No. ZH 0831 and ZC 2827 upon the deposit and/or payment of Kenya Shillings One Million (Kshs. 1,000,000/-) to the Interested Parties Advocates Account or in this Honourable courts account.
6) THAT the balance of the amount payable by the Plaintiff/Applicant be paid in the installments of Kshs. 500,000/= until payment in full,
7) THAT AMACO do be compelled to pay the rest of the monies to the Interested Parties.
2. The court granted the prayers the prayers thus;
I allow the application as follows. Prayer 2, Prayer, 4, Prayer 5 the payment to be made is Kshs. 2 million within 45 days hereof. This is to be deposited in court or in a joint interest earning account of both counsel. In default of this the stay will lapse.
The application be served upon the Respondents and Interested parties within 7 days here respond in 14. The matter be assigned a date for directions thereafter.
3. This morning (25th November 2025) the application for contempt came for hearing. Mr. Muganda appeared for the applicant, Ms. Muema for Interested Parties.
4. Let me just say it was a long day. It turned out that that I had issued orders in HCCA 102/2024 ( RUMAN LOGISTICS LIMITED VS GEORGE KINOTI DAVID (AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ESTATE OF KARWITHIA) with respect to Kilungu MCC E192/2024 - sending the matter back to the subordinate court for determination of interim issues. This is what I said therein:
Court: I have perused the application and the offending orders of the subordinate court and I am not certain what the issue is. The Subordinate court issued temporary stay of execution pending he
hearing and determination of the application inter -partes. Was the court made aware of the fact that the trailers were carrying transit goods? It does not appear so to me. Even in the application before me it is mentioned in passing. It appears to me that the orders of stay suspended the attachment. If not, instead of this court dealing with that issue- (the meaning of the orders of the subordinate court) I direct that the applicant goes back to the subordinate court to address the court on the issue of the transit goods and seek review of those orders there
Order: Matter remitted back to subordinate court for mention on 18th November 2025 before the trial court to deal with the issue of the transit goods.
5. Clearly there was a problem. Interpreting these orders, and of course that affected compliance. Ms. Muema brought it out clearly pointing out that the court ought to have known what it had said in HCCA 102 of 2025 before granting the orders in HCCOMM E003 of 2025 which appear to be in contradiction. Mr. Muganda’s view was that the only issue was that Ms. Muema’s clients wanted their money. His client had demonstrated good faith by complying with the deposit order and now could the court release the m/vehicles. Ms. Muema pointed out the procedural issues
6. It was now clear that the matter Kilungu MCC E192/2024 was one of the matters in HCCOMM E003 of 2025 and it was unfortunate that the appellant in HCCA 102 of 2025 being the Plaintiff in HCCOMM E003 of 2025 appeared to be forum shopping for different orders, with different advocates. Mr. Kitindio Musembi Counsel in HCCA 102 of 2025 was not present as that matter was not coming up then.
7. After a discussion, back and forth it was agreed that the HCCOMM E003 could not continue as it was with Kilungu MCCC E192 of 2024 embedded in it while the order was subsisting sending it to the subordinate court. This was classic judicial embarrassment.
8. All is well that ends well. Having recognized the problem and in the interests of justice, that mellower of all hard stances in the justice system, Mr. Muganda and Ms. Muema gave negotiations a chance as guided by the Constitutional fiat to the Judiciary to encourage ADR. When we returned in the afternoon there was consensus: That the order in the HCCA matter could not hold effect and needed to be dealt with: In the mean time in this matter Ms. Muema conceded that the motor vehicles herein below be released upon payment of auctioneer’s fees and storage charges.
1) KCV 222p/ZH0831
2) KBH 582P/ZC2827
3) KBQ 316 K
4) KBU 077 R
9. On the issue of payments money there was divergence in proposals . Ms. Muema wants Mr. Muganda’s client to deposit ½ the decretal sum of the total Ksh 15, 575,946 that is due as security - Mr. Muganda’s position is that they have sued AMACO to pay their insured ( his client’s) Insurance claims as per the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Thirty party) Risks Act Cap 405 being the sum of Kshs. 10,320,559/95 arising out of the interested parties’ suits against the plaintiff herein in Kilungu Magistrate’s court MCC/E.186, 187, 188, 190, 192, & 193 all of 2024 wherein judgment was entered in their favour against the plaintiff as follows; Kshs. 274,995/= Kshs. 5,642,388/=, Kshs. 247,545/=, Kshs. 2,052,495 and Kshs. 1,017,495/= respectively.
10. Mr. Muganda’s client concedes that he is liable to pay the sum of 5,291,512 and has paid Kshs. 2m as directed by this court in court.
11. He proposes to pay the balance in 60 days. Ms. Muema’s client wants the money paid in 30 days.
12. The only issue for determination in the interim is how much money the applicant should pay and within what period of time.
13. I take into account that the judgments were delivered on 19/9/2025 in the subordinate court - and the interested parties are entitled to the fruits of their judgment.
14. At the same time the applicants’ motor vehicles were attached (lawfully) of course- and he will incur extra expenses of paying auctioneers fees together with storage charges.
15. What would be fair is to recognize that Interested Parties are entitled to the fruits of their judgment, the applicant he is ready and willing to pay the balance of what he concedes as demonstrated by the deposit of the Ksh 2 million was paid immediately and he has taken action to ensure that the rest is paid. Further there is the extra charges of auctioneer’s fees and storage charges .
16. The applicant expressed that the concession by Ms. Muema to have the motor vehicles released gives the applicant the opportunity to do business. It was expected that the motor vehicles would all be released (any time from now (24/11/2025 upon payment of the requite fees and charges ).
17. It is fair that the applicant pays the remainder of what accepts as his liability at the earliest: –
18. Hence - it is my view - that the balance of
19. The following orders issue:
a. A stay of execution of the judgments of the subordinate court subject of this suit to issue on the following conditions:
i. The money Ksh 2 million deposited in court be released to the applicant’s counsel forthwith for payment into a joint interest earning account of both counsel.
ii. Ksh 3, 291, 512 be deposited in the same joint interest earning account within 45 days hereof. In default the stay to lapse automatically and execution to issue
iii. Upon payment of the auctioneers’ fees and storage charges the following motor vehicles be released to the applicant .
1. KCV 222p/ZH0831
2. KBH 582P/ZC2827
3. KBQ 316 K
4. KBU 077 R
iv. Orders accordingly
20. The applicant is at liberty to engage AMACO
21. Mention in 45 days before the Deputy Registrar for Compliance.
Dated, signed and delivered via CTS on 26th November 2025.
Mumbua T. Matheka
Judge
CA Chrispol
'