Counties

Petition seeks to attach county assets in defaults

court

Entrance to the Mombasa Law Courts. PHOTO | KEVIN ODIT | NMG

Summary

  • Disney Insurance Brokers Ltd is seeking to have Section 21 (4) of the Government Proceedings Act as read with Order 29 (2) and 29 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 declared null and void with regard to enforcement of decrees passed against county governments.
  • The Act shields county governments from being served with any execution proceedings for recovery in monetary decrees.
  • Through lawyer Gikandi Ngibuini, Disney Insurance Brokers Ltd says that it is important for the court to determine the constitutionality of the Act.

Movable assets and money belonging to counties could be liable for attachment should a petition by an insurance brokerage firm seeking to recover Sh127.6 million from Mombasa County be allowed.

Disney Insurance Brokers Ltd is seeking to have Section 21 (4) of the Government Proceedings Act as read with Order 29 (2) and 29 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 declared null and void with regard to enforcement of decrees passed against county governments.

The Act shields county governments from being served with any execution proceedings for recovery in monetary decrees.

In its petition at the High Court in Mombasa, the insurance brokerage firm has sued the Council of Governors, the County Government of Mombasa, the Attorney General and the Kenya Law Reform Commission.

Through lawyer Gikandi Ngibuini, Disney Insurance Brokers Ltd says that it is important for the court to determine the constitutionality of the Act.

Mr Ngibuini argues that on November 5 2020, the petitioner obtained warrants of attachment and sale of the county government of Mombasa movable assets which (warrants) were later set aside by the court.

The firm argues that it also obtained orders (of garnishee) against the county government bank accounts but they were also set aside.

“The county government of Mombasa has not, therefore, paid a single cent to the petitioner and the judgment issued by the court with subsequent orders have not yielded any positive results,” argues the company.

It says that in setting aside the orders seeking to attach the county’s movable assets and money in bank accounts, the court stated that the county government was insulated and protected from any execution process because of the existence of the Act.

[email protected]