Muchendu t/a Icon Auctioneers v Abdi (Miscellaneous Case E190 of 2022) [2023] KEELRC 717 (KLR) (16 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2023] KEELRC 717 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Miscellaneous Case E190 of 2022
AN Mwaure, J
March 16, 2023
Between
Jeremiah Kiarie Muchendu T/A Icon Auctioneers
Claimant
and
Idris Omar Abdi
Respondent
Ruling
1.The applicant has filed an exparte application via notice of motion dated November 1, 2022 and seeking the following prayers.1.That this matter be certified as urgent.2.That this honourable court be pleased to grant me or my authorized agent police assistance to accompany me during physical execution of the warrants of attachment against Garissa water & Sewage company Limited in order to maintain law and order and enable us remove the attached movable goods/assets and issue notification of sale for purpose of auctioning the same to recover the decretal amount totalling Kshs 1,160,200/- plus other incidental costs of the attachment.3.That the officer in charge Garissa Police station or an officer under his command in the rank of assistant inspector to hereby give assistance for the purpose of maintaining law and order.4.That the cost of this application be borne by the respondent/judgment debtor.
2.There is Jeremiah Muchendu T/A Icon Auctioneers who describes himself as a class B licenced auctioneer who says he received a warrant of attachment and sale against judgment debtors movable goods and assets to recover decretal amount of Kshs 1,160,200/-.
3.He depones that on October 14, 2022 he proceeded to the premises of the judgment debtor with the proclamations and that after the proclamation the judgment debtor did not pay the decretal sum.
4.He says on the expiry of the 7 days’ notice on October 24, 2022 he proceeded to the judgment/debtor’s premises and employees of judgment/debtor threatened to lynch them and so they departed for the sake of peace.
5.He says the warrants cannot be executed without police assistance during the attachment of the proclaimed assets.
6.He says that the officer commanding Garissa Police Station or an officer under his command to the rank of an Assistant Inspector to give assistance in order to maintain law and order to enable to execute so as to recover from the judgment debtor Garissa Water & Sewerage company limited the decretal amount amounting to kshs 1,160,000/-.
Grounds of Opposition by the Judgment/Debtor
7.The defendant or judgment debtor in his grounds of opposition states that the grounds prayed cannot be granted in view of provisions of section 21 of Government Proceedings Act as read with order 29 of rule 2(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
8.He said that the defendant being a government department for the County Government of Garissa no order of execution can ensue being a government entity.
9.He therefore says that the order sought cannot be granted against the defendant and the decree holder has other available avenues to pursue.
10.He concludes that the application against the defendant is scandalous and frivolous and abuse of court process and ought to be struck off with costs.
Determination
Costs will remain in the cause.
11.The issue for determination by this court is whether the court can grant an order to authorise police assistance during execution of a decree against Garissa Water & Sewerage Company Limited in order to attach the proclaimed goods to satisfy a decree of Kshs 1,160,200/-.
12.The respondent is under the county government of Garissa for purposes of water provision and sewerage services. The county government is part of the government of Kenya since the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
13.As to whether Government Proceedings Act should apply as well to the county government the court in the case of Republic vs AG & Another Exparte Stephen Wanyee LLI (2016)
14.Being guided by the above, the court then finds that the respondent herein is guided by section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act which states:
15.The court as regards the procedure of satisfaction of orders against the government pronounced itself in the case of County Secretary Migori vs Linet Magambo Judicial review 2 of 2020 where it stated.
16.The court therefore flowing from the above holds that the judgment/debtor must go back to the drawing board and follow the mandated procedures and lawful available avenues to execute decrees against the Government where county governments bodies are part of. In the premise the court declines to give the order to authorise police assistance to execute warrants against Garissa Water & Sewerage Company Limited being a government agency for purposes of recovering the decretal amount totalling Kshs 1,160,200 plus costs of the attachment.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY IN NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2023.ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGEORDERIn view of the declaration of measures restricting Court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the directions issued by His Lordship, the Chief Justice on 15th March 2020 and subsequent directions of 21st April 2020 that judgments and rulings shall be delivered through video conferencing or via email. They have waived compliance with Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which requires that all judgments and rulings be pronounced in open Court. In permitting this course, this Court has been guided by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution which requires the Court to eschew undue technicalities in delivering justice, the right of access to justice guaranteed to every person under Article 48 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 1B of the Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya) which impose on this Court the duty of the Court, inter alia, to use suitable technology to enhance the overriding objective which is to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes.A signed copy will be availed to each party upon payment of Court fees.ANNA NGIBUINI MWAUREJUDGE