Ocharo Kebira & Co Advocates v African Merchant Assurance Company Limited

2. This application is premised on the grounds disclosed on its face and is supported by the affidavit of Eric Ntabo sworn on even date and the gist of the application is that whereas a Client/Advocate relationship had existed between the parties, the respondent failed to pay legal fees thus precipitating a taxation of the same and a Certificate of cost of Ksh. 101,250/- was issued on 7.5.2025 which sum attracted interest at the rate of 14% from 18th May 2024. Further that the applicant was in the taxation cause awarded costs of Ksh 5000/- and that as at the time of preferring this application the cumulative sum was Ksh 123,022/-. 3. The applicant posits that it has credible information that the respondent operates a paybill No. 6716100 with Ms Safaricom PLC (the garnishee) which has sufficient monies to settle the decretal sum plus costs which the applicant craves that be assessed at Ksh 50,000/-. 4. On 30.7.2025 this court issued an order nisi and directed the Garnishee to appear before the court on 22.9.2025 to show cause as to why it ought not settle the said decretal sum. 5. The Respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by Nicklus Okero on 22.9.2025 wherein it proposes that it be allowed to settle the decretal sum by instalments of Ksh 50,000/- per month as from October 2025. 6. The garnishee also filed a replying affidavit sworn by Stella Mutinda Mutua on 19.9.2025 wherein it was deposed that respondent operates not a paybill but rather a till No. 6716100 with the Garnishee and that the said account has sufficient funds to settle the decretal sum. The garnishee craves that the order nisi made on 30.7.2025 be made absolute whereupon it shall settle the decretal sum within 3 days. The garnishee also prays that it be awarded costs of Ksh 50,000/- payable by the respondent. 7. This application was canvassed orally and parties’ submissions conformed to their averments as contained in their respective affidavits. 8. I have duly considered the rival submissions of parties and the issues that arise for determination are as follows: i. Whether the Respondent/Judgement debtor ought to be allowed to settle the decretal sum by way of monthly instalment payments of Ksh 50,000/- ii. Whether the garnishee order nisi ought to be made absolute. iii. Who should pay the costs of the applicant and the garnishee? 9. On whether the respondent ought to be allowed to pay the decretal sum by way of monthly instalments of Ksh 50,000/-, I do find that at no time after taxation of the Advocate/Client bill of costs did the respondent file any application for payment by instalment wherefore the prayers as made in a replying affidavit of Nicklus Okero cannot avail the respondent the conform of settling the decretal sum by way of instalment. This in my view is afterthought and I will not allow it. 10. On the whether the decree nisi ought to be made absolute I do find that the Garnishee has sufficient funds in the respondent’s till No. 6716100 wherefore there is no reason as to why this court ought not make the garnishee order nisi absolute. I will allow this prayer and the garnishee order nisi made on 30.7.2025 is hereby made absolute. 11. Whereas the applicant and the garnishee have craved for costs of Ksh 50,000/- each, I do find that there was no complexity in this application and I thus award the applicant and the garnishee costs of Ksh 20,000/- each. 12. This file is hereby marked as closed. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17836/eng@2025-09-26 2

page 2 of 3

DATED AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 M.S. SHARIFF JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/17836/eng@2025-09-26 3

page 3 of 3