REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI CIVIL CASE NO. 478 OF 2002 BRAEBURN LIMITED……………………………………………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS CAPTAIN KUNGU MUIGAI…………………………………….…….DEFENDANT RULING The Objector’s application by chamber summons dated 8th September, 2004 filed herein is very badly drafted. That is understandable as it was drawn by the Objector in person. What is surprising is that her learned counsel, Mr. Kuria, decided to proceed with it as it is. It does not even state under what provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules it is brought. But from what was stated by learned counsel during arguments, it is an application under Rules 56 and 57 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules). It is essentially brought upon the grounds that the attached goods belong to the Objector and not to the Defendant/Judgment-Debtor who is her brother-in-law. The Plaintiff/Decree-Holder opposes the application as indicated in the grounds of objection dated 17th November, 2004. An Objector proceeding under Rule 56 aforesaid must establish his legal or equitable interest in the whole or part of the property attached in execution of decree. Needles to say, to do this he must bring forth some evidence that will tilt the balance of probabilities in his favour. In the instant case, beyond the statement that the attached goods are her personal property, the Objector has not attempted at all to show how those goods are her personal properties. The execution itself was against the Judgment- Debtor’s surety, not against the Judgment-Debtor himself, and was levied under section 92(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21. The consent order dated 4th November, 2003 by which the surety, one NGENGI MUIGAI, bound himself to satisfy the decree on behalf of the Judgment-Debtor, shows that he is the occupier of the premises where attachment was made. The Objector has not exhibited any document tending to show that she is the occupier of the said premises. In the premises the Objector has not discharged her burden. This application is without merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs. Order accordingly. DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2005. H.P.G. WAWERU JUDGE DELIVERED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2005.
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.