Robson Ruston Tabu v Kerio Valley Development Authority (Garnishee Proceedings)
The bottom line
#Long-standing debts must be paid; courts will enforce payment even if the debtor cites COVID-19 or financial hardship.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a Garnishee Order Absolute should issue where the Garnishee confirms holding frozen funds of the judgment debtor and raises no objection
The order absolute was granted; liability was resolved in favour of the applicant and the Garnishee had no objection to the orders being made final.
The court applied the two-stage garnishee process under Order 23: the order nisi establishes liability, and at the inter partes stage the bank demonstrates the judgment debtor's liquidity. Here the Garnishee confirmed a credit balance of Kshs.3,347,468.05 and had frozen Kshs.1,385,997.85 pending directions, and raised no objection. The debt had been outstanding since 30.11.2007 following non-adherence to a mandamus, so the court invoked its inherent powers under Section 3A to prevent injustice to the judgment creditor.
Whether the COVID-19 pandemic suspension of execution proceedings shields the judgment debtor from garnishee attachment
No; it would be unjust for the respondent to hide behind the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid paying or proposing payment.
The respondent's CEO deponed that all execution proceedings had been suspended due to COVID-19 and that the respondent was seeking funds to settle the decree. The court rejected this objection, noting the debt had remained outstanding since 2007 and that the respondent, as a public corporation, had merely been creating roadblocks. Had the respondent settled the debt or made acceptable proposals, attachment would have been unnecessary.
Legal principles established
#- Garnishee proceedings are a distinct method of executing a judgment; the judgment debtor is not a necessary party to them.
- The court's inherent power under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act may be invoked to prevent injustice to a successful litigant.
Court orders
#- 1.The final Garnishee Order Absolute do issue to enforce the underlying debt with costs as premised in the application
- 2.Corresponding costs of Kshs.25,000/= countermanded by the Garnishee
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 23 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (inherent powers of the court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Robson Ruston Tabu v Kerio Valley Development Authority (Garnishee Proceedings)", Case Analysis (2020). JR No. 11 of 2016 (Garnishee Proceedings). Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.