Whether the preliminary objection is merited;
6.The parameters of consideration of a Preliminary O5bjection are now well settled. A Preliminary Objection must only raise issues of law. The principles that the Court is enjoined to apply in determining the merits or otherwise of the Preliminary Objection were set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd  EA 696.
8.The advocate having been in conduct of the matter only deposed on facts that are within her knowledge with regard to the execution of the decree a process which the advocate has been handling and thus well versed with facts deposed.
9.On the issue of service, the Applicant served the Respondents through the email addresses that were provided in their correspondences a fact that has not been disputed by the Respondents who only argue against the substituted service.
10.Without delving further, the Preliminary Objection as is requires the investigation of facts such as ascertaining the residence of the Respondent and thus cannot be a Preliminary Objection properly so called. This court is satisfied that the Preliminary Objection does not meet the threshold.
Whether summons be issued to Mr Bulent Gulbahar of and Mr Washiba Abdalla Abdul to be orally examined;
11.Order 22 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which the Applicant premised its Application empowers the Court to order for attendance of an officer of a Judgment debtor’s Company to be examined orally on whether any or what debts are owing to the Company and any means or property the Company may have to satisfy the Applicant’s decree.
13.The duty of the court in this respect was also aptly stated by Ringera J as he then was in Ultimate Laboratories V Tasha Bioservice Ltd: Nairobi HCCC No 1287 of 2000 (unreported) as follows:-
14.It was the Applicant’s case that the Decretal Amount herein remains unsatisfied to the tune of Kes 5,426,016.08.Despite constant effort, the Decree holder's advocates and/or its appointed agents are unable to find any attachable assets of the Judgment Debtor company in order to satisfy the Decree.
15.It is notable that the judgment in this case was entered on May 3, 2018 and 5 years down the line the decree remains unsatisfied.
17.This court is satisfied that this is a proper case for the summoning of the Defendant’s directors to shed light on the company’s credit worthiness.