Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2026] KEELC 1073 (KLR)

Saronera Limited v Were & 2 others (Civil Case E321 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1073 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
26 February 2026
COChristine Ochieng
1,487 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The High Court of Kenya refused to lift arrest warrants against a judgment debtor who showed no good faith in paying a Kshs. 7.5 million debt.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a first-instance ruling on the 2nd Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 20th June 2025 seeking to set aside or lift warrants of arrest and detention issued by the court on 7th November 2023 at the Plaintiff's instance, requiring him to pay Kshs. 13,500,000 or face committal to civil jail. The 2nd Defendant argued the warrants were defective, overstated the judgment debt (which he put at Kshs. 7.5 million), and that he had disclosed attachable properties (four plots in Kajiado valued at about Kshs. 11.9 million) and a decree in his favour from the Chief Magistrate's Court for Kshs. 11,650,285, which could satisfy the debt; he contended arrest was a last resort. The Plaintiff, through its director Stephen Njoroge Gikera, confirmed a balance of Kshs. 7.5 million remained unpaid, that attachment efforts failed because the 2nd Defendant's assets could not be traced, and that a decree-holder may elect any mode of execution. The Plaintiff relied on Innocent G. Ondieki v Julius Nakaya Kabole and Chege v Kamau Kinga & Co. Advocates. The 1st and 3rd Defendants did not respond and the 2nd Defendant filed no submissions. Framing a single issue, the court, per Christine Ochieng J, held execution by arrest is permitted under Section 38(d) of the Civil Procedure Act; the 2nd Defendant had not shown good faith, had made no attempts to settle the balance, and appeared to file successive applications to delay execution. The application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the warrants of arrest and detention issued on 7th November 2023 should be set aside/lifted

Holding

The application was dismissed; the 2nd Defendant failed to demonstrate good faith or grounds to warrant lifting of the warrants

Reasoning

The court noted the consent judgment of 11th May 2023 requiring refund of Kshs. 20 million, the unpaid balance of Kshs. 7.5 million, the 2nd Defendant's failed attempt to review the consent and to have warrants stayed, his failure to pay or show means of payment, and his filing of multiple applications perceived as delaying tactics. Execution by arrest is lawful under Section 38(d), and the plaintiff, having failed to trace attachable assets, was entitled to elect that mode.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A decree-holder is at liberty to elect any mode of execution, including arrest and detention under Section 38(d) of the Civil Procedure Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 20th June 2025 dismissed
  2. 2.Plaintiff awarded costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly invoked; supervisory/execution jurisdiction over its own process under the Civil Procedure Act (Section 38)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Saronera Limited v Were & 2 others (Civil Case E321 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1073 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1073/eng@2026-02-26

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