Umeme Services Limited v Aee Power Sa

7. The Applicant contends that execution against the Respondent has proved impracticable as the Respondent has exited the jurisdiction. The Applicant therefore seeks execution by way of garnishee proceedings, asserting that the Garnishee is indebted to the Respondent pursuant to separate contractual engagements connected to the Last Mile Connectivity Project. Analysis and Determination 8. Having considered the pleadings and submissions, the Court finds that the primary issue for determination is whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold for issuance of garnishee orders under Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 9. Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules permits attachment of a debt “due or accruing due” from a garnishee to a judgment debtor. The guiding principles are settled: i. The decree holder must demonstrate the existence of an unsatisfied decree; ii. The garnishee must be shown to be indebted to the judgment debtor; iii. Once a prima facie case is established, the evidentiary burden shifts to the garnishee to deny indebtedness. 10. It is common ground that the arbitral award issued on 9th March 2022 was duly adopted as a judgment of this Court, with a decree issued on 27th November 2023. Once recognized, an arbitral award assumes the character of a judgment of the Court and is enforceable as such. 11. The Court therefore finds that there exists a valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied decree. 12. The Applicant placed before Court evidence, including affidavits and annexures, pointing to the existence of funds payable by the Garnishee to the Respondent pursuant to arbitral proceedings conducted in London. The Applicant further relied on communications and the Court’s earlier preservation orders issued on 31st January 2026 and reaffirmed on 11th February 2026, which were made to preserve the substratum pending determination of the application. 13. Notably, while both the Respondent and the Garnishee vigorously attacked the quality of the Applicant’s evidence, neither placed before Court a categorical affidavit denial that no monies are held or payable by the Garnishee to the Respondent. The objections raised were largely legal and procedural in nature. 14. The Court is guided by the reasoning in Choitram v Nazari [1984] KLR 327, where it was held that failure to specifically traverse material allegations may amount to an implied admission. 15. Further, the purpose of garnishee proceedings was succinctly stated in Mengich t/a Mangich & Co Advocates & another v Joseph Mabwai & 10 Others [2018] eKLR, where the Court observed that the primary object of a garnishee order is to make the debt due by a debtor of the judgment debtor available to the decree holder without driving him to a separate suit. 16. On the material placed before Court, and in the absence of a specific evidentiary denial by the Garnishee, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has established, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of a debt due or accruing due to the Respondent capable of attachment. 17. The Respondent argued that the Applicant relied on hearsay, that arbitration proceedings are confidential, and that garnishee proceedings cannot be used as a discovery mechanism. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6750/eng@2026-04-30 2

page 2 of 3

18. While confidentiality of arbitration is a recognized principle, it cannot operate as a shield to defeat execution of a lawful decree where credible material is placed before Court showing that funds are payable. 19. The Garnishee contended that it was not a party to the arbitral proceedings between the Applicant and Respondent and that there is no privity of contract with the Applicant. That objection, though correct in principle, misses the point. Garnishee proceedings do not depend on privity between the decree holder and the garnishee, but on indebtedness between the garnishee and the judgment debtor. 20. Further, the argument that ordinary execution remedies were not exhausted is equally unpersuasive in the circumstances of this case, where the Respondent is admittedly outside the jurisdiction and execution has proved impracticable. 21. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that a valid and unsatisfied decree exists and the Applicant has demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the Garnishee is indebted to the Respondent. The Respondent’s and Garnishee’s objections do not dislodge the Applicant’s prima facie case. 22. Accordingly, the Court allows the present application and makes the following orders: 23. i. The garnishee order nisi is hereby made absolute. ii. The Kenya Power & Lighting Company PLC (Garnishee) shall release to the Applicant, or its advocates on record, such sums as are held on behalf of or payable to the Respondent, sufficient to satisfy the decretal sum, interest, and costs. iii. Any balance remaining after satisfaction of the decree shall be released to the Respondent. iv. The costs of the garnishee proceedings are awarded to the Applicant and shall be borne by the Respondent. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADO, JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT In the presence of: C/A – Moses …………………. for the Applicant ….……………. for the Respondent ……………for the Garnishee https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6750/eng@2026-04-30 3

page 3 of 3