Kinyanjui Njuguna & Co Advocates v Safaricom Plc

215,309.00 and costs from the monies held on behalf of the judgment debtor or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree and costs herein. d. That a Garnishee order absolute be issued attaching the said pay bill number held by the 1 st garnishee and the account number held by the 2nd garnishee on behalf of the judgment debtor and directing that the garnished amounts or such portions as may be sufficient be released to the Applicant's Advocate on record in the under listed bank to satisfy and or answer part of the decree in the amount of Kshs 215,309.00 together with the costs of this garnishee proceedings. Account name: Kinyanjui Njuguna & Co. Advocates Account Number: 0XXXXXXX01 Bank: Diamond Trust Bank Capital Center Branch e. That Applicant be awarded costs of this application to be paid out of the said pay bill number and bank account number held by the 1st and 2nd garnishee respectively assessed at Kshs 50,000/ = as part of the Garnishee proceedings. 2. The application is predicated on the grounds on its face and reiterated in the supporting affidavit sworn by the Decree –holder on even date. The gist of case is that the Applicant obtained a decree for a sum of Kshs 215,309.50 together with costs which amount has not been satisfied by the Judgement. The Decree Holder through his advocate has moved and obtained garnishee order absolute for the 1st and 2nd Garnishee to attach the monies held in accounts belonging to the judgment debtor by then respectively. 3. Both Garnishees were served with the application and each filed a replying affidavit in response. 4. The 1st Garnishee, Safaricom PLC filed a replying affidavit dated 9th March,2026 in which it confirmed that indeed it holds and operates the Pay Bill Accounts No. 509800 which is operated by the Respondent, Judgment Debtor. However, the 1st Garnishee stated that while it had Kshs 113,336.00 as balance in the Utility Account for the Respondent, the same had been garnished by the Prior Garnishee order Nisis Absolutes that are highly rating in priority and remain unsettled as set out in the schedule at paragraph 8 at pages 2 to 5 of its Replying Affidavit dated 9th March,2026. 5. The 2nd Garnishee, Diamond Trust Bank Limited filed a replying affidavit dated 9th December,2025 confirming that it holds an account number 0XXXXXXX01 for Judgement Debtor at Capital Centre Branch. However, the 2nd garnishee stated that the account has insufficient funds to settle the decretal sum as the same was overdraws to the like of -36.00 as at 1st December,2025. 6. During the interparties hearing, both garnishees sought to be discharged from the proceedings with costs since they could not satisfy the sums owned by the Judgement Debtor. In response counsel for the Applicant sought for court’s directions in view of their responses. Detemination: 7. Having listened to all counsel for the parties herein, I have carefully read through the Notice of Motion application together with its supporting affidavit, both dated 26th November,2025 alongside the replying affidavits sworn on behalf of the two garnishees on 7th December,2025 and 9th March, 2026. 8. The issue for determination is whether or not, an order requiring the garnishees to attach the amounts of money in the respective accounts, they each hold and operate on behalf of for the Judgment Creditor in satisfaction for the debt owed by it? https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5523/eng@2026-04-28 2

page 2 of 4

9. This application is governed by Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provided for a very elaborate procedure to be applied in dealing with garnishee proceedings as follows: ‘‘(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 judgment-debtor 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.’’ It is a self-confirmed rule that prescribes the procedure to ensure that a litigant enjoys the fruits of its judgement. 10. The nature of a Garnishee proceedings is that if it a legal mechanism through which a decree holder or Judgment Creditor uses to recover money owed by a Judgment Debtor from a Third party, which may be a bank employer holding the debtor’s funds. This process involves obtaining an exparte order to freeze and seize funds without involving the judgment debtor. This is so as to avoid the debtor form emptying the account. It basically operates as a Notice to Show Cause. 11. The application is then subjected to an interpartes hearing for parties to determine if the debt exists and funds to satisfy the same also exist with the garnishee. The garnishee is therefore required to show cause why it cannot settle the judgment debt as required. 12. In this particular case, the both garnishee have neither disputes and the existence of the debt nor holding and operating accounts for the Judgement Debtor. However, in their respective responses, they have indicated that the accounts they hold and operated on behalf of the Judgment debtor have insufficient funds to satisfy the debt owned to the Judgement Creditor/Decree-Holder. Counsel for the Applicant/Judgment Debtor is not disputed or challenged this claim. 13. In the circumstances, the garnishee order absolute cannot issue as contemplated by law and hence: a. The Garnishee are hereby discharged from the other obligation to satisfy the decree in favour of the Judgment Creditor/Applicant as demanded vide an order of Garnishee nisi. b. The Applicant/Judgment Creditor shall be at liberty to pursue or trace any other means of execution and enforcement of the Judgment debt. c. The Applicant/Judgment Creditor shall move the court appropriately, if at all. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED this 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026. HON. D.O CHEPKWONY JUDGE In the Presence of: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5523/eng@2026-04-28 3

page 3 of 4

Mr. Brian counsel for the applicant Mr. Shar HB for M/s Rweya counsel for the 1st Garnishee, Safaricom PLC Court Assistant: Brian https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5523/eng@2026-04-28 4

page 4 of 4