KCB Bank was placed at the centre of the dispute after AA Bayusuf & Sons moved to court seeking the release of more than Sh76 million owed to them by the Northern Water Works Development Agency.
The money, held in an account at KCB’s Garissa Branch, is linked to work done under the Garissa Sewerage Project in 2009.
As the company pushed for payment, it argued that Section 94 of the Civil Procedure Act does not block a party from requesting permission to execute before taxation within the same application.
They explained that the law only requires such permission when a party chooses to proceed with execution before the taxing master has assessed the costs, and they maintained they had followed the correct process.
The High Court agreed with the company’s reasoning and directed KCB Bank Kenya to release Sh76,822,199.82 to AA Bayusuf & Sons.
Through a Garnishee Order Absolute, the court instructed the bank to immediately pay the amount from the agency’s account to satisfy the decretal sum.
The court explained that the purpose of garnishee proceedings is to enable a decree holder to reach money owed by a judgment debtor, provided the bank holds those funds.
According to the judge, the only requirement in such proceedings is that the garnishee in this case, KCB must be indebted to the judgment debtor.
The state agency had opposed the application, saying it was irregular because AA Bayusuf & Sons had started execution before costs were taxed. They claimed the application was defective, arguing that the company should have sought permission separately before asking for execution.
However, AA Bayusuf & Sons insisted there was nothing illegal about including the request within the same application.
They added that the decision to pursue costs later was their choice, and since the court had already awarded them costs, they were free to return for them once assessed.
In its ruling, the court confirmed that the debt had already been admitted and adopted in a June 2025 decision. It also noted that KCB had confirmed it held enough money in the agency’s account to settle the debt and that no one else had made a competing claim.
The court further observed that the state agency had a chance to file proper grounds of opposition but failed to do so. With all these factors in mind, the judge found no reason to delay the matter and allowed AA Bayusuf & Sons to finally receive the money owed to them.
