[2014] KEHC 4100 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 4100 (KLR)

The court held that the phrase 'orders accordingly' in the ruling of 30th September 2011 did not amount to a grant of all reliefs sought by the Objector, including the unconditional release of the attached property and an award of costs. The court found that the learned judge only determined which items the Objector had a legal and equitable interest in and did not specifically order their release or address costs. The court further held that section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act was inapplicable as there was no accidental slip or omission in the ruling, and section 100 did not empower the court to amend a ruling or order in the manner sought. The extracted order was found to accurately...

Citation
[2014] KEHC 4100 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: A.O. Bayusuf & Sons; Defendant: Sarah Mbithe Kivuva
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
18 June 2014
Case Number
Civil Case 608 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion Seeking Interpretation and Amendment of Previous Court Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
JB Havelock
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Court Orders, Amendment of Orders, Costs Award, Objection Proceedings, Attachment and Release of Property
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Interpretation of Court Orders Amendment of Orders Costs Award Objection Proceedings Attachment and Release of Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.O. Bayusuf & Sons

Plaintiff

Sarah Mbithe Kivuva

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion Seeking Interpretation and Amendment of Previous Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'orders accordingly' in the ruling of 30th September 2011 should be interpreted to mean all orders sought in the application were granted as prayed.
  2. 2 Whether the Objector is entitled to the release of vehicle KAY 524J and other attached items.
  3. 3 Whether the Objector is entitled to costs, including storage and auctioneer's charges.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the phrase 'orders accordingly' in the ruling of 30th September 2011 did not amount to a grant of all reliefs sought by the Objector, including the unconditional release of the attached property and an award of costs. The court found that the learned judge only determined which items the Objector had a legal and equitable interest in and did not specifically order their release or address costs. The court further held that section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act was inapplicable as there was no accidental slip or omission in the ruling, and section 100 did not empower the court to amend a ruling or order in the manner sought. The extracted order was found to accurately...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The Objector's Notice of Motion dated 28th September 2012 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.