Kk Transporters Limited v Sal Construction & Consultants Limited

cannot be applied as set-off in another court and this court has no jurisdiction to issue orders in a matter that is not before it and or in a matter that is not consolidated. 6. The respondent asserted that this court's jurisdiction is only limited to issuance of stay orders on execution, proceedings and or transfer of matters and not to make substantial orders on matters not before it as it will result into legal and procedural anarchy. 7. The respondent underlined that the value of attached goods surpasses the lower court decretal amount by over 7,000,000/-. It asserted that the lower court decree was executed wholly as the auctioneers seized the defendant's goods with a sum of Kshs. 9,307,640 against a mere principal sum of Kshs. 6,000,000/-. Analysis and Determination 8. While penning the ruling, the court observed that the appellant’s application is premature because it seeks to set off the taxed costs in the sum of Kshs. 191,640/- due to the respondent pursuant to the taxation ruling delivered on 6th February 2025. 9. Order 22 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that: “ 14. Execution in case of cross-decrees [Order 22, rule 14] (1) 10. Where applications are made to a court for the execution of crossdecrees in separate suits for the payment of two sums of money passed between the same parties and capable of execution at the same time by such court, then— (a) if the two sums are equal, satisfaction shall be entered upon both decrees; and (b) if the two sums are unequal, execution may be taken out only by the holder of the decree for the larger sum and for so much only as remains after deducting the smaller sum, and satisfaction for the smaller sum shall be entered on the decree for the larger sum as well as satisfaction on the decree for the smaller sum.” In Kenya Commercial Bank v Commissioner of Police & 2 Others [2012] KEHC 488 (KLR) the court held that: “ ...this rule allows a decree holder of a larger sum of money to apply to court of the satisfaction of a smaller sum of money. For this to happen, there must be two definite decrees that can be satisfied at the same time.” 11. The rule relates to ’the execution of cross-decrees in separate suits for the payment of two sums of money passed between the same parties and capable of execution at the same time’. The decrees may be for equal or unequal amounts. A set off is allowed to reduce the sum a person owes to the creditor by the sum the creditor owes them. Satisfaction is thereafter entered for the to the extent of the set off. If the amounts are equal, satisfaction is entered in full settlement of the debts. If the amounts are unequal, satisfaction is entered for the amount equal to the set off leaving the balance of the unequal thereof to execution by the holder of decree for the larger sum. Satisfaction is the full fulfilment of an obligation, completely discharging the debt or legal liability. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2748/eng@2026-02-26 2

page 2 of 3

12. The application of this rule results into settlement of debts resulting into a single net payment and execution of one decree for the larger sum. 13. However, for the rule to apply, there must be two or more decrees between the same parties which are ‘capable of execution at the same time’. Procedural anarchy 14. Before I close, I do note the argument by the respondent that a decree and or certificate of costs issued in a different court cannot be applied as set-off in another court and this court has no jurisdiction to issue orders in a matter that is not before it and or in a matter that is not consolidated. 15. The respondent reinforced its position and asserted that this court's jurisdiction is only limited to issuance of stay orders on execution, proceedings and or transfer of matters and not to make substantial orders on matters not before it as it will result into legal and procedural anarchy. 16. Procedural anarchy must always be averted. But, the manner prescribed in effecting set off ‘where applications are made to a court for the execution of cross-decrees in separate suits’, does not envisage or mean a consolidation of the suits. The framing and application of consolidation of suits may present procedural dilemmas of its kind. 17. The ideal situation is for the court to settle set off in the two suits at the application for execution stage. However, as issues may emerge, it would be appropriate and acceptable procedure to annex both decrees in the application for set off under the rule. Lack of decree 18. Coming back to this case, is taxed costs in the sum of Kshs. 191,640/- in the ruling of 6.2.2026. These being party and party costs, and in light of the law on and procedures applicable to taxation, set off would be properly appropriated under the rule if such costs are expressed in a decree which can be executed. 19. Therefore, the appellant’s application dated 28.2.2025 is premature. It ought to be considered after the decree has been issued. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ONLINE APPLICATION THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 F. GIKONYO M JUDGE In the presence of: Muthoni for Respondent Njuru for Appellant CA- Ivan/Aggrey https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/2748/eng@2026-02-26 3

page 3 of 3