Ouma Maurice Otieno T/A Om Otieno & Company Advocates v Africa Merchant Assurance Company Limited

The Applicant’s Case. 3. The Applicant stated that he had a decree amounting to Kshs 146,790/= and the Judgement Debtor/ Respondent had refused to satisfy it. That the Garnishee is holding the Respondent’s monies in Till Account Numbers 545XXX and 410XXXX. The Applicant further stated that the decree remained unsettled to date ad continued attracting interest. 4. It was the Applicant’s Case that the Respondent’s refusal to satisfy the decree has exposed him to huge expenses and long proceedings to recover professional fees for services rendered. That the Respondent had engaged in clandestine activities including paying its customers through advocates’ accounts with the intent of concealing the flow of its financial dealings so as to avoid settling debts. It was the Applicant’s further case that the Respondent’s refusal to settle the decree was unfair as it enjoyed the Applicant’s services. Garnishee’s Replying Afidavit. 5. The Garnishee filed a Replying Affidavit dated 14th October 2025 sworn by Cerere Kihoro, the Garnishee’s legal counsel. The Garnishee stated that the Respondent operated Till Numbers 545XXX and 410XXXX. The Garnishee further stated that till number 410XXXX had sufficient funds to satisfy the outstanding decretal sum. The Garnishee stated that they had set aside the sum of Kshs 146,790/= and were willing to remit the sum to the Applicant. 6. In regards to the Respondent, I have gone through the proceedings and I have noted that the Applicant filed an Affidavit of Service dated 6th October 2025. The Affidavit of Service indicated that the Respondent had been served with the present Application on 20th September 2025. I am satisfied that the Respondent was served with the Application and has not filed a reply. 7. In regards to the prayer for Garnishee Absolute, Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules provide: (1) A court may, upon the ex parte application of a decree-holder, and either before or after an oral examination of the judgment-debtor, and upon affidavit by the decree-holder or his advocate, stating that a decree has been issued and that it is still unsatisfied and to what amount, and that another person is indebted to the judgment-debtor and is within the jurisdiction, order that all debts (other than the salary or allowance coming within the provisions of Order 22, rule 42 owing from such third person (hereinafter called the “garnishee”) to the judgment-debtor shall be attached to answer the decree together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings; and by the same or any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear before the court to show cause why he should not pay to the decree- holder the debt due from him to the judgment-debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree together with the costs aforesaid. (2) At least seven days before the day of hearing the order nisi shall be served on the garnishee, and, unless otherwise ordered, on the judgment-debtor. (3) Service on the judgment-debtor may be made either at the address for service if the judgmentdebtor has appeared in the suit and given an address for service, or on his advocate if he has appeared by advocate, or if there has been no appearance then by leaving the order at his usual residence or place of business or in such manner as the court may direct……… https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/15525/eng@2025-10-29 2

page 2 of 3

8. I concur with the finding of the court in Eric Ntabo & Co Advocates v Trident Insurance Co. Ltd; Safaricom PLC (Garnishee) [2025] KEELRC 2215 (KLR) where it was held: “ A perusal of Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules demonstrates that an order for Garnishee Absolute ought to be preceded with an order for Garnishee Nisi. In the court’s view, this requirement is meant to serve two purposes. First, it is to give the Garnishee the opportunity to contest the request for an order of Garnishee Absolute. Second, it is to give the Judgment Debtor the opportunity to either contest the Garnishee proceedings or to settle the decretal sum without the need for attachment of the amounts held by the Garnishee.” 9. From the record, this court issued a Garnishee Nisi on 18th September 2025. The Applicant also prayed that during the hearing of the Application, the Garnishee Nisi be made absolute. Further, as I have stated earlier in this Ruling, the Respondent was served with the Application together with the Garnishee Nisi on 20th September 2025 and did not to respond or challenge the order. It is also salient to note that the Garnishee confirmed that the Respondent operated Till Account Number 410XXXX and was ready to release the monies to the Applicant upon service of the Garnishee Absolute. 10. Flowing from the above, I make the following orders: i. An order for Garnishee Absolute is issued against Safaricom PLC that all monies belonging to the Judgement Debtor (Africa Merchant Assurance Company Limited) and held by the Garnishee in Till Account Number 410XXXX be attached to recover Kshs 146,790/= owed to the Applicant by the Respondent. ii. Each party shall bear their own costs in this Application. iii. To apply to the series. RULING DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT BOMET THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. HON. JULIUS K. NG’ARNG’AR JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of: Siele/Susan (Court Assistants). Otieno for the Applicant. Mugumya for the Respondent. Metale for the Garnishee. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/15525/eng@2025-10-29 3

page 3 of 3