[2018] KEHC 2625 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 2625 (KLR)

The court found that the allegations of duress made by the Judgment debtor were unsubstantiated and unverified, as neither the Judgment debtor nor its counsel attended court to prosecute the application. The consent letter was shown to have originated from the County Government of Mombasa and was duly signed by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 2625 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Argos Furnishers Limited; Defendant: County Government of Mombasa
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 13 of 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Consent Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AW Mwangi
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Consent Orders, Duress in Consents, Authority of Advocate, Costs of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Consent Orders Duress in Consents Authority of Advocate Costs of Application

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Argos Furnishers Limited

Plaintiff

County Government of Mombasa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Consent Order

  1. 1 Whether the consent order recorded on 13th February, 2018 should be set aside on grounds of duress.
  2. 2 Whether the Chief Finance Officer of the Judgment debtor was subjected to duress in entering the consent.
  3. 3 Whether the consent order was valid and binding on the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the allegations of duress made by the Judgment debtor were unsubstantiated and unverified, as neither the Judgment debtor nor its counsel attended court to prosecute the application. The consent letter was shown to have originated from the County Government of Mombasa and was duly signed by the County Attorney. The court applied the principle that a consent order is binding unless obtained by fraud, collusion, or misapprehension of facts, none of which were established. Consequently, the court held that the consent recorded was valid and binding, and dismissed the application to set it aside as unmeritorious.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 6th March, 2018 is dismissed for being unmeritorious.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff/decree holder.