[1999] KEHC 75 (KLR)

[1999] KEHC 75 (KLR)

The court held that the consent judgment entered on 4th May 1992, and reinstated by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 276/97, settled the suit between the parties. As a result, any subsequent proceedings or applications, including the plaintiff's application dated 23rd December 1997 seeking to further amend...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] KEHC 75 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd.; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1219 of 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; application struck out with costs to defendant
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Preliminary Objection, Amendment of Pleadings, Res Judicata
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Consent Judgment Preliminary Objection Amendment of Pleadings Res Judicata

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjoh Amalgamated Ltd.

Plaintiff

Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the application to further amend the Plaint is competent in light of the consent judgment entered on 4th May 1992.
  2. 2 Whether proceedings or applications filed after the consent judgment are null and void.
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal decision reinstating the consent judgment precludes further action in the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the consent judgment entered on 4th May 1992, and reinstated by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 276/97, settled the suit between the parties. As a result, any subsequent proceedings or applications, including the plaintiff's application dated 23rd December 1997 seeking to further amend the Plaint, were rendered null and void. The court found that the consent judgment remained the operative order, and the application to amend the Plaint could not be entertained. The preliminary objection raised by the defendant was therefore upheld, and the application was struck out with costs to the defendant. The court also noted that attempts to reconstruct related files...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; application struck out with costs to defendant

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's application dated 23rd December 1997 is struck out with costs to the defendant.