Ndungu v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 558 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 6404 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed property transfer enforcement against NSSF but blocked refund and contempt claims, requiring the Government Proceedings Act process for money judgments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Execution of transfer documents via the Deputy Registrar
Granted subject to condition precedent that the Applicant first forwards the transfer documents to the Respondent for signature
The Respondent's replying affidavit did not deny that the decree required it to execute transfer documents, so no analysis of the propriety of such an order was necessary. However, the Applicant had to follow standard procedure by first submitting the documents for execution before the Deputy Registrar could sign on default within 14 days.
Order for refund of alleged overpayment
Held in abeyance pending reconciliation meeting between the parties or taking of evidence under section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act
The parties attached conflicting statements of accounts - the Applicant claiming to be owed Kshs 3,355,734.82 while the Respondent claimed the Applicant owes it Kshs 2,017,335.76. Because questions arising in execution must be determined by the executing court under section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, evidence or reconciliation was required before a refund could be ordered.
Enforcement of taxed costs against a government institution
Refused for want of compliance with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act and Order 29 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The judgment debtor is a government institution; monetary judgments against the Government are enforced through a Certificate of Order issued after taxation, served with a view to mandamus against the Attorney General. The Applicant had deposed no steps taken along this route, so granting the order would amount to unprocedural execution.
Committal to civil jail and attachment against the Managing Trustee
Dismissed as derivative of prayers 4 and 5 and premature absent compliance with section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
Prayers 6 and 7 were dependent on success of prayers 4 and 5. Since prayer 5 was dismissed for want of procedure and prayer 4 held in abeyance, and the section 21 processes had not been done, there was no merit in granting committal or attachment against David Koros.
Legal principles established
#- Where a judgment debtor does not deny the obligation to execute transfer documents, the court may direct execution, and on default the Deputy Registrar may sign on the judgment debtor's behalf
- Monetary orders against the Government must be enforced through the procedure in section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act (Certificate of Order and mandamus), not through contempt or direct execution
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant shall forward to the Respondent, transfer documents in respect of the suit property for their signatures
- 2.The Respondent to execute the said transfers within 14 days of receipt from the Applicant
- 3.In case of default by the Respondent/judgment-debtor within the stated timelines, the Deputy Registrar of the Court shall execute/sign on behalf of the judgment-debtor all the transfer documents in respect of apartments known as Hazina -B30/F1-F9 and L.R No. Kitisuru 101/C233 in favour of the Decree-Holder
- 4.The determination of the remaining prayer 4 shall abide the meeting between the parties and/or taking of oral evidence as the case may be
- 5.The orders sought under prayers 5, 6 and 7 are dismissed/struck out for want of procedure
- 6.Each party to bear their costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Enforcement jurisdiction over a decree issued in the same suit; inherent powers of the court and civil procedure rules (Order 22, Order 29 rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules; section 34 Civil Procedure Act; section 21 Government Proceedings Act)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndungu v National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 558 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 6404 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (notice of motion dated 29th February 2024 arising from ELC Civil Suit judgment of 11th May 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6404/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.