This was an appeal against the ruling of the High Court which allowed the attachment and execution of the property of the appellant. The case emanated from the attachment and sale of immoveable property of the appellant to settle a judgment debt against the appellant. The appeal was based on the ground that the trial judge erred in condoning an illegality. The appellant argued that the sale of the attached property did not include the thirty days advertising required by the rules. The appellant further argued that there was excessive attachment since the value of the property attached exceeded the debt owed.
The respondents argued that there was no illegality because the dispute relates to a movable property. They further argued that the appellant was in default of payments which he undertook to pay.
The court in deciding the matter held there was over-attachment of the immovable property. It ruled that is such cases the appellant was supposed to file a suit against the court bailiff. It held that the bailiff should account for the proceeds of any extra execution, not the judgment creditor. In regard to alleged illegalities, the court was of the view that a homestead was a moveable property hence the need to follow the 30 day rule. However the court found that this was the fault of the bailiff not the trial judge and the appeal was dismissed.