[2020] KEELC 3878 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3878 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st defendant had admitted liability for the sum of Kshs. 20,000,000 in the settlement agreement, but had already paid Kshs. 13,900,000, leaving a balance of Kshs. 6,100,000. The court held that judgment on admission for the full Kshs. 20,000,000 was not justified as substantial payment had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3878 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Abdulrahman Farah Osman (Administrator of the estate of Virginia Muthoni Kabuu, Deceased); Defendant: Julius Kangara Ndegwa; Defendant: The County Land Registrar, Nairobi; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: The County Government of Nairobi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 474 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Admission And/or Striking Out Defence
Outcome
application partially allowed
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Judgment on Admission, Settlement Agreements, Enforcement of Settlement, Interest on Judgment Debt, Striking Out Defence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Judgment on Admission Settlement Agreements Enforcement of Settlement Interest on Judgment Debt Striking Out Defence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulrahman Farah Osman (Administrator of the estate of Virginia Muthoni Kabuu, Deceased)

Plaintiff

Julius Kangara Ndegwa

Defendant

The County Land Registrar, Nairobi

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

The County Government of Nairobi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judgment on Admission And/or Striking Out Defence

  1. 1 Whether judgment on admission should be entered against the 1st defendant for Kshs. 20,000,000 plus interest as per the settlement agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant's statement of defence should be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff as per the plaint.
  3. 3 Whether the 1st defendant is liable to pay the outstanding balance and interest as agreed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st defendant had admitted liability for the sum of Kshs. 20,000,000 in the settlement agreement, but had already paid Kshs. 13,900,000, leaving a balance of Kshs. 6,100,000. The court held that judgment on admission for the full Kshs. 20,000,000 was not justified as substantial payment had been made. Instead, the court ordered the 1st defendant to pay the outstanding balance of Kshs. 6,100,000 within ninety days, with interest at 20% per annum as per the agreement, failing which the plaintiff would be at liberty to execute. The court also ordered the 1st defendant to bear the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

application partially allowed

Orders

  • The 1st defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff Kshs. 6,100,000 within ninety (90) days from the date of the ruling.
  • In default of payment, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed with execution.