Kiplagat Kotut v Rose Jebor Kipngok [2020] KEELC 2832 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a debtor's attempt to block a garnishee application, confirming decree holders can pursue money owed through bank accounts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff's advocates were properly on record
The ground was rejected because it turned on disputed facts unsuitable for a preliminary objection.
Mr. Korir told the court from the bar that he had shown the Defendant's advocate the receiving stamp on the consent and Notice of Change of Advocate filed 4th September 2019. The documents were not traceable in the file, but the Defendant's counsel did not dispute the information. Since a preliminary objection must rest on undisputed facts, the ground failed, with liberty to pursue it in subsequent proceedings.
Whether the garnishee application contravened Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules
No contravention; the application was properly brought under Section 38(c) and (f) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 23 Rules 1 and 2, with show-cause by the garnishee to follow.
Order 23 Rules 1 and 2 permit a decree holder, upon affidavit by the decree holder or his advocate, to seek attachment of debts owed to the judgment debtor, with the garnishee served with the order nisi at least seven days before hearing and given the chance to show cause. The application expressly invoked these provisions, so the premature-process objection had no basis.
Whether the supporting affidavit breached Article 31 of the Constitution or contained illegally obtained evidence and falsehoods
The ground failed for lack of specificity; the Defendant did not identify which paragraphs contained falsehoods or illegally obtained evidence.
Counsel did not specify the offending paragraphs. The Defendant had filed a Notice of Intention to cross-examine the deponent, so the issues could be probed at the subsequent hearing. The court also struck out paragraphs 3 and 4 (account details) on its own motion under Order 19 Rule 6 because the deponent, an advocate, did not disclose his source and the details were not within his own knowledge - but that did not justify striking out the whole application.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection cannot lie where the facts are disputed.
- A decree holder may bring a garnishee application upon affidavit by himself or his advocate under Order 23 Rule 1 and 2, with the garnishee appearing to show cause.
- Where a deponent is not the party and has not disclosed the source of information not within his own knowledge, those statements may be struck out under Order 19 Rule 6.
Court orders
#- 1.Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the supporting affidavit, containing bank account details, struck out on the court's own motion under Order 19 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 2.The Defendant's preliminary objection rejected and dismissed with costs
- 3.Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated; the ruling is made in first-instance civil proceedings under the Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Changarok v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 173 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 1446 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1446 (KLR)11 Mar 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiplagat Kotut v Rose Jebor Kipngok [2020] KEELC 2832 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2832/eng@2020-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.