Wainaina t/a Seventy Seven Auctioneers v Naivas Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1197 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court ruled that auctioneers cannot charge attachment fees in Kenya unless goods are actually attached, not just proclaimed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Deputy Registrar erred in awarding attachment fees when no attachment of the Respondent's property took place
- 2.Whether the Auctioneer's application to enlarge time to lodge an appeal against the Taxing Officer's ruling should be granted
Key legal issues
#Whether attachment fees were validly awarded where the judgment-debtor satisfied the decree within the proclamation notice period
No; attachment fees could not be awarded because no attachment actualized - the decree was satisfied within 7 days of proclamation, before any attachment could occur
The warrants of attachment were received on 4th December 2023 and the proclamation notice gave the Respondent 7 days to satisfy the decree. Only after expiry of that period could goods be attached and attachment fees become payable. The Respondent complied in full within the period, leaving no legal foundation for the fees awarded by the Deputy Registrar. Proclamation is merely an intention to secure goods; attachment entails actual seizure.
Whether the Auctioneer's late application to appeal against the Taxing Officer's ruling should be allowed
Declined; the application was filed about a month after the ruling without explanation of the delay and was merely reactive to the Respondent's application
Rule 55para 4 of the Auctioneer Rules 1997 requires an appeal against a Taxing Officer's ruling to be filed within 7 days. The Auctioneer filed about a month late, did not explain the delay, and had raised no issue with the ruling until the Respondent filed its own application. The Court inferred the application was intended to obfuscate the real issue.
Legal principles established
#- Proclamation of goods is not attachment; attachment fees are only payable upon actual attachment after expiry of the proclamation notice period
Court orders
#- 1.The Application by the Auctioneer dated 22nd October 2024 is declined
- 2.The Application by the Respondent dated 15th October 2024 is allowed, and the order granting the Auctioneer attachment fees is reviewed and set aside
- 3.No order on the costs of the Applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 55[4] of the Auctioneer Rules 1997 (appeal/review from the Taxing Officer's ruling)
Relief refused
#Auctioneer's application to enlarge time to file an appeal and have attachment fees reassessed under items 6, 8 and 11 of the Bill of Costs
Filed out of time without explanation of delay and merely to obfuscate the real issue
Costs
No order on the costs of the Applications
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
As held in Agricultural Development Corporation v. James Onkundi Omakori t/a Lifewood Auctioneers [2020] e-KLR, proclamation is not attachment.
The Court is satisfied that the Application filed by the Respondent, Naivas Company Limited is merited, and is allowed. The Application filed by the Auctioneer Richard Wainaina, t/a Seventy Seven Auctioneers has no merit and is declined.
The Application by the Respondent, dated 15th October 2025 is allowed, and the order granting the Auctioneer attachment fees, reviewed and aside.
It was only at the expiry of 7 days, that the Respondent's goods could be attached, and attachment fees become payable to the Auctioneers.
Issues in the judgment
#The final orders refer to the Respondent's application as dated 15th October 2025, while the judgment body and parties' materials date it 15th October 2024
Typographical error in the judgment ('confiate' for 'confuse' or 'conflate')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wainaina t/a Seventy Seven Auctioneers v Naivas Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1197 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1197/eng@2025-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.