Kipkenei & Company Advocates v Pineapples Edge Limited (Miscellaneous Case 10 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 2572 (KLR)

The court held that Order 22 Rule 35 is a discovery mechanism in aid of execution, exercisable where there is an unsatisfied money decree and difficulty in tracing assets. Fraud need not be proved at that stage. The director is the sole surviving director and the company can only speak through her; her claim that the company has no assets must be tested under oath with documentary evidence. The court has a proactive duty to ensure decrees are not reduced to paper judgments.

The court disagreed with the Respondent's reliance on Karisa Chengo. Section 13 of the ELC Act gives the court the status of the High Court and power to execute its own orders. Because the taxed costs arose from a land matter, the ELC is the parent court of the dispute; under the doctrine of ancillary powers it may look behind a company used as a vehicle to frustrate a land-related decree. Nonetheless, the court declined to impose personal liability immediately, staying that prayer pending the examination.

Reading paragraph 10 of the Advocates' Remuneration Order with Section 51 of the Advocates Act, a certificate of taxation is conclusive as to the amount due. Order 22 Rule 28 applies the execution rules to orders. Since the Deputy Registrar of the ELC taxed the bill and the reference was dismissed, the certificate is executable as a decree of the ELC, satisfying the jurisdictional requirements of Order 22 Rule 35.