Valda Solutions Limited v Biggold Kenya Limited

4. It is further deposed that it has learnt that the respondent company is in the verge of winding up its operations and that execution ought to proceed failure to which the appellant shall suffer loss. 5. The applicant seeks for setting aside the orders of the learned Magistrate ordering release of the said vehicles and further orders to lift the orders of stay granted in the court below. 6. The respondent in his response acknowledges the fact that judgment of Ksh.1,971,186 was entered on 03/10/2025 in favour of the appellant and in their presence in court. The respondent on its application was granted orders of stay of Sixty (60) days. The appellant was not present in court although the judgment date was given in presence of both parties. The respondent’s advocate wrote to the appellants informing them of the orders of stay and advised them to hold the execution process during the stay period, which information was acknowledged by the appellant’s counsel. 7. Despite having been informed of the stay orders granted by the court of first instance, the appellant went ahead and carried out execution by attaching the three vehicles of the respondent. The respondents extracted the order on 28/10/2025 and served the appellant. The respondent states that the details of the attachment and location of vehicles were not disclosed by the appellants and that the vehicles continued to be held even at the time of filing this appeal. The respondents state that they are willing to satisfy the decree but will not meet the charges of the auctioneer for attachment and storage which they term illegal. 8. There are several issues arising from this application. Firstly, it is the validity of the orders issued on 3rd of October 2025 and whether the said orders should be set aside. The second issue relates to the time the said orders were communicated to the applicant’s counsel as well as whether the applicant had the opportunity of accessing the orders in the Judiciary Case Tacking System before the vehicles were attached. Thirdly, is the issue of whether the applicant deliberately ignored the orders of the lower court in carrying out the attachment of the respondent’s vehicles. 9. I have perused the memorandum of appeal and noted that the orders sought therein are similar to the prayers in this application. This being the position, it would not be appropriate to decide the appeal and the application simultaneously. Order 42 governs the lodging, procedure and determination of appeals. The procedures under Order 42 must be complied with in hearing and determination of appeals. If this court were to determine this application at this stage, it would mean that the orders sought in the appeal will have been determined prematurely and in total disregard of the procedure laid down under the law. 10. I have perused the detailed submissions of the parties herein and noted that they have addressed the issues in this application together with those in the appeal in the same breath. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby give directions as follows: - 12. a. That this application dated 29/10/2025 shall stand abandoned and that the parties do pursue the appeal. b. That the record of appeal be filed within 30 days following which directions will be taken. It is hereby so ordered. RULING DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, DATED AND SIGNED AT THIKA THIS 22ND DAY OF JANURY 2026. F. MUCHEMI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/411/eng@2026-01-22 2

page 2 of 2