Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment· [2024] KEELC 443 (KLR)

Mulekyo and Company Advocates v Athi Water Works Development Agency; Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited (Garnishee) (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E097 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 443 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 January 2024
1,731 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a government agency's bank accounts can be attached to pay a debt, ordering Co-operative Bank to release Ksh 17.4 million.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 18th September 2023 brought by Anthony M. Mulekyo Advocate, the decree holder, under Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 23 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking a garnishee order attaching monies held by Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited on behalf of Athi Water Works Development Agency to satisfy a decretal sum of Ksh 17,389,089.20 per a certificate of taxation issued on 2nd December 2022. The judgment debtor opposed, deposing through Eng. Joseph Kamau that as a National State Agency its funds form part of the Consolidated Fund withdrawable only with Controller of Budget approval. The garnishee, through its Legal Officer Jackson Oire, confirmed the accounts were well funded and sufficient to pay. The court framed a single issue: whether the application was merited. Applying Order 23 and the authorities on garnishee proceedings, the court held that the judgment debtor's status as a government agency does not shield its accounts from attachment, noting the Respondent is a body corporate under section 65(1) of the Water Act 2016 capable of suing and being sued. Execution is lawful and a decree holder should not be deprived of the fruits of a decree except for good reasons. Since the debt was undisputed and the garnishee confirmed available funds, the application was allowed. The court directed the garnishee to release Ksh 17,389,089.20 to the decree holder within thirty days, with each party bearing its own costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the judgment debtor's status as a National State Agency whose funds are subject to the Consolidated Fund and the Controller of Budget bars garnishee attachment

Holding

The court rejected the objection, holding that being a government agency is not a reason to escape satisfying legal liabilities, since the Respondent is a body corporate established under section 65(1) of the Water Act 2016 capable of suing and being sued.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that entities are deemed government entities for various reasons and that such status has never been accepted as a ground for escaping legal liabilities. The Respondent is a water works development authority established under the Water Act 2016 and a body corporate. Execution is lawful, and the decree holder should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree except for good reasons.

p. 3
02

Whether the garnishee order should be made absolute

Holding

Yes. There was an unsatisfied certificate of taxation for Ksh 17,389,089.20, judgment against the Respondent, and the garnishee confirmed availability of sufficient funds.

Reasoning

Under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a decree holder may seek attachment of debts owed to the judgment debtor by a third party. The judgment debtor did not deny owing the decretal sum; the garnishee admitted the accounts were well funded and sufficient to pay the decretal sum. No sufficient reason appeared for the order not to be made absolute.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A judgment debtor's status as a government agency does not by itself shield its accounts from attachment in garnishee proceedings.
  • A decree holder should not be deprived of the fruits of a decree except for good reasons, and a subsisting decree stands good until set aside.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.An order directing the garnishee to release the sum of Ksh 17,389,089.20 to the decree holder held at Cooperative Bank, Account number (particulars withheld) and (particulars withheld) within thirty days
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 23(1), 23(2), 23(3), Rule 1, Rule 4, and Order 51; Order 22 rule 42
  • Water ActSection 65(1)
  • Government Proceedings ActNot specified (referred to generally)

Cases cited (6)

  • Ngaywa Ngigi & Kibet Advocates vs Invesco Assurance Co. Ltd; Diamond Trust Bank (Garnishee)
    Miscellaneous Civil Application 405 of 2017 [2020] eKLR
  • Choice Investments Ltd vs Jeromnimon (Midland Bank Ltd, Garnishee)
    [1981] 1 All ER 225
  • Pritchard vs Westminster Bank Ltd
    [1969] 1 All ER 999, [1969] 1 WLR 547
  • Rainbow vs Moorgate Properties Ltd
    [1975] 2 All ER 821, [1975] 1 WLR 788
  • Joachimson vs Swiss Bank Corpn
    [1921] 3 KB 110 at 131, [1921] All ER Rep 92 at 102
  • Otieno Ragot & Co Advocates vs City Council of Nairobi
    [2015] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 23(1), 23(2), 23(3) and 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mulekyo and Company Advocates v Athi Water Works Development Agency; Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited (Garnishee) (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E097 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 443 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/443/eng@2024-01-31

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.