Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Garnishee application arising from ELRC judgment of 11th September 2024)· [2025] KEELRC 2673 (KLR)

Shikolio v Transmara Sugar Company (Cause 5 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2673 (KLR)

Employment and Labour Relations Court
2 October 2025
JGJacob Gakeri
1,827 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 blocked an attempt to seize a debtor's bank funds because the exact amount owed had not first been established.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, who had obtained judgment against Transmara Sugar Company on 11th September 2024 for the equivalent of two months' gross salary as compensation, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 1st July 2025 seeking a garnishee order nisi against I & M Bank Kenya Ltd, where the respondent held an account, to attach monies in satisfaction of an alleged outstanding decretal balance of Kshs.165,463. The respondent opposed the application, contending that it ought to have been brought under the ELRC (Procedure) Rules, 2024, that the decree extracted contained a material defect not corresponding with the judgment of Radido J, and that the sum of Kshs.398,059 paid had been acknowledged by the applicant's counsel, leaving nothing due. The court, Gakeri J, framed a single issue: whether the motion was merited. Reviewing the law on garnishee proceedings, including the decision of Mativo J in Nyandoro & Co. Advocates and the Nigeria Supreme Court's decision in C.B.N v Auto Import Export, the court noted the two-step nature of garnishee proceedings and their premisation on established indebtedness. Finding that the respondent disputed the alleged debt and that conflicting decrees had been extracted, the court held that the amount due had to be determined before garnishment could be sought, and dismissed the motion with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a garnishee order nisi could issue where the judgment debtor disputes the amount of the alleged indebtedness

Holding

The application was dismissed because the amount due was contested and required prior determination

Reasoning

The court accepted Mativo J's exposition that garnishee orders depend on a discernible debt due and owing to the judgment debtor. Since the respondent disputed the balance claimed, pointing to the terms of the judgment of Radido J and an acknowledged payment of Kshs.398,059, the court held the amount due had to be established before garnishment proceedings could proceed. The motion was therefore unsustainable.

p. 4
02

Whether the decree extracted was actionable

Holding

Not decided; the court noted conflicting decrees dated 20th and 28th March 2025 and left the amount due unresolved

Reasoning

The court observed that the first decree of 20th March 2025 tracked paragraphs 28–31 of the judgment (compensation of Kshs.230,808), while a second decree of 28th March 2025 additionally incorporated paragraph 27 (two months' gross salary at Kshs.165,404 per month). The court found it unclear what transpired between the two dates, and this uncertainty supported the conclusion that the indebtedness was disputed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Garnishee orders are premised on indebtedness by the judgment debtor; without such indebtedness it would be unjust to order a party to pay the judgment creditor
  • Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules prescribes two steps in garnishee proceedings, the first being an order nisi which freezes the debt until made absolute

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 1st July, 2025 is dismissed for want of merit
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 23 Rules 1, 3, 4 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shikolio v Transmara Sugar Company (Cause 5 of 2022) [2025] KEELRC 2673 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Garnishee application arising from ELRC judgment of 11th September 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2673/eng@2025-10-02

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