[2018] KEHC 10103 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 10103 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant, Beverly Lidonde Holdings Ltd, had already entered into a consent judgment with the first respondent, Slok Construction (K) Ltd, in HCCC No. 354 of 2016, which set out the terms of repayment and enforcement. The applicant's failure to comply with the repayment schedule led to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 10103 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Beverly Lidonde Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Slok Construction (K) Ltd; Respondent: Clear Real Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 201 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Suit
Outcome
suit struck out and notice of motion dismissed with costs to the defendants
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Abuse of Court Process, Consent Judgment Enforcement, Injunctive Relief, Execution of Decree
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Abuse of Court Process Consent Judgment Enforcement Injunctive Relief Execution of Decree

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverly Lidonde Holdings Ltd

Applicant

Slok Construction (K) Ltd

Respondent

Clear Real Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Suit

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to injunctive relief restraining attachment of its goods by the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the filing of the present suit constitutes an abuse of court process in light of the consent judgment in HCCC No. 354 of 2016.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, Beverly Lidonde Holdings Ltd, had already entered into a consent judgment with the first respondent, Slok Construction (K) Ltd, in HCCC No. 354 of 2016, which set out the terms of repayment and enforcement. The applicant's failure to comply with the repayment schedule led to lawful execution proceedings. By filing a new suit to challenge the attachment, the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already settled by consent, which is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of the court process. The court held that any grievances regarding the execution or the underlying consent judgment should have been addressed within the original suit, not...

Court Disposition

suit struck out and notice of motion dismissed with costs to the defendants

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 24th May, 2018 is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
  • This suit is struck out with costs for being an abuse of the court process in view of the existence of HCCC No. 354 of 2016.