This is an appeal from the ruling of the Subordinate Court dated 31.08.2022 dismissing the Appellant’s application seeking to set aside the judgment and striking out the Appellant’s name from the suit. The Appellant also challenged the execution by way of attachment of his motor vehicle.
I have considered the appeal and I do not find any reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision as the Appellant was fully represented in the matter and participated in the hearing leading to the resultant judgment. As the trial court noted, the judgment was regular on its face. If the Advocates did not have any authority, then the Appellant has recourse against the said firm.
The parties are agreed that following the judgment entered against the Defendants, the other parties settled the decretal sum plus a portion of their costs. The Appellant admits that costs are due from him. Although he complains that he was wrongly sued, the matter has been fully settled by the judgment and the conclusion I have reached in this matter. As regards the attachment, I hold that as long as any sum was due, the Respondent was entitled to proceed with execution. The trial magistrate was correct to note that the Appellant as judgment debtor could not object to the execution. He could only tender the judgment debt to the extent of costs.
In the circumstances, the appeal lacks merit. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 1st day of MARCH 2023
D. S. MAJANJA
JUDGE