Ayombe v Nelliwa Building and Civil Engeneering Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E814 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2148 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court stopped auctioneers from selling a private citizen's household goods and car because the judgment creditor couldn't prove they belonged to the debtor company.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the proclamation and attachment of the Objector's household goods and vehicle at Miotoni House Number 43 Karen was lawful
- 2.Whether the attached goods belong to the Objector and not to the judgment debtor, Neliwa Builders and Civil Engineering Ltd
- 3.Whether the Objector is entitled to a stay of execution and lifting of the attachment
Key legal issues
#Whether execution can proceed against property of a non-party where the decree holder has not shown the goods belong to the judgment debtor
Execution against the objector cannot proceed because the decree holder failed to demonstrate that the attached goods belong to the judgment debtor company; the objection was upheld and the attachment nullified.
The court examined the averments and submissions and noted that the judgment debtor is a company while the objector is an individual who is not a director or shareholder. The decree holder bore the duty of establishing a nexus between the judgment debtor and the objector. Since no such nexus or ownership was demonstrated, execution against the objector's property was untenable and the application seeking stay and lifting of attachment was merited.
Legal principles established
#- The decree holder bears the duty to demonstrate the nexus between the judgment debtor and the person whose goods are attached; absent such proof, execution cannot proceed against the objector.
Court orders
#- 1.The objection is upheld
- 2.The process of execution as against the objector is stayed forthwith
- 3.Any attachment in process against the objector is nullified forthwith
- 4.Costs to the objector
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over execution/objection proceedings in a matter in which judgment was entered on 16th June 2023; specific provision not stated in the judgment
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the circumstances, I find the application is merited. The objection is upheld and the process of execution as against the objector is stayed forthwith. Any attachment in process against the objector is nullified forthwith. Costs to the objector.
The decree holder has a duty to show nexus between the judgment debtor with the objector herein.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the suit case number of the underlying claim or of the objection proceedings, and no neutral citation is provided.
The address of the proclaimed property is inconsistently given as Miotoni House Number 43 Karen in the pleadings and Mitamboni road, House number 43, Karen in the submissions.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ayombe v Nelliwa Building and Civil Engeneering Limited & another (Employment and Labour Relations Cause E814 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 2148 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2148/eng@2025-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.