[2009] KEHC 1931 (KLR)
The court found that the issue of the validity of the guarantee had already been determined in previous proceedings and was therefore res judicata. The directors of the defendant company voluntarily executed the guarantee, which was adopted as an order of the court and has not been set aside. The defendant failed to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1931 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Chemagro Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 548 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Stay of Execution and Related Reliefs
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Guarantee Liability, Res Judicata, Company Directors Liability
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd
Plaintiff
Chemagro Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Stay of Execution and Related Reliefs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to a stay of execution of the decree and judgment.
- 2 Whether the guarantee signed by the directors on 23rd August, 2005 should be declared unlawful, null and void.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff should be compelled to render accounts to the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issue of the validity of the guarantee had already been determined in previous proceedings and was therefore res judicata. The directors of the defendant company voluntarily executed the guarantee, which was adopted as an order of the court and has not been set aside. The defendant failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for a stay of execution or for the guarantee to be declared unlawful. The application was viewed as an attempt to delay execution and avoid payment of the decretal sum. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application and dismissed it with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 26th May, 2009 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT FO KENYA AT NAIROBI
Civil Suit 548 of 2002
CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LTD...........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHEMAGRO LTD..............................................................DEFENDANT
RULING
Before me for determination is chamber summons dated 26th May, 2009 which is brought under provisions of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order XXI Rule XXI of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant/applicant seeks for orders that there be a stay of execution of the decree and judgment herein; that the plaintiff/respondent do render the accounts pertaining to the case herein, and the guarantee signed on 23rd August, 2005 be declared a unlawful null and void.
The application is predicated on the grounds that the defendant company has collapsed, the defendant had paid money in their account which has not been credited by the plaintiff. Finally the directors of the defendant are retirees with meager means of income. Those grounds are expounded by the matters deposed to in the supporting affidavit of Henry Ogola sworn on 26th May, 2009. According to the supporting affidavit, it is stated that Henry Ogola and Mellan Apondi Ogola are the directors of the defendant. It is contended that the two directors were threatened and they signed a guarantee to pay the plaintiff the decretal sum owing by the defendant.
The defendant is a limited liability company collapsed, the directors who are retirees, have no means of income and are not capable of paying the sum under guarantee. They urged the court to declare the guarantee unlawful because the plaintiff was supposed to proceed for the recovery of the money owed by the defendant under the provisions of part 6 of the Companies Act. The directors were supposed to be examined but instead, they were threatened with the possibility of being committed to civil jail. That is how they signed the guarantee promising to pay the debt of the company. Counsel urged the court to find the guarantee should not be taken to cover the company’s liabilities.
This application was vigorously opposed by the plaintiff; counsel relied on the replying affidavit sworn byPerris Mburu on 10th June, 2009. According to the plaintiff, the issues regarding the validity or otherwise of the guarantee were determined in the notice of motion dated 08th April, 2008 by the ruling of Khaminwa J dated 16th October, 2008. The issue regarding the guarantee is therefore res judicata. The guarantee was also adopted as an order of this court vides a ruling delivered on 31st October, 2007 by Azangala J. Which order has never been set aside.
The defendants voluntarily signed the guarantee in which the directors guaranteed to pay the sum owing to the plaintiff. Although the defendants claim that they have not been furnished with the statements, they have neglected to pay the accounts. The statement of account is annexed to the replying affidavit and it is evident that the last time the defendants made any payments on the account was on 30th November, 2004. This application is meant to forestall execution proceedings. No sufficient cause has been shown why there should be a stay of execution. This court should not be used to grant the defendant perpetual amnesty and facilitate it from escaping from the indebtedness.
Having set out the summary of the gist of the matters contained in this application, it is clear from the ruling by Khaminwa J delivered on 16th October 2008, the issue of the validity of the guarantee that was signed by the directors was determined. The defendants sought a specific prayer that the guarantee will be declared a nullity due to failure of consideration. Bringing this application that is seeking for the same order is prohibited under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act under the principle of res judicata.
The other substantive prayer sought in this application is for the accounts. The replying affidavit contains the statement of accounts payable by the guarantors therefore nothing turns on this prayer. I find no justifiable reason why the defendant should be given stay of execution merely to escape from its duties of paying the decretal sum.
The court determined that the guarantee was validly executed by the directors of the defendant. That guarantee was made an order of this court; it has not been set aside. The statement of accounts show the last payment made by the defendants towards the decretal sum was some Kshs.10, 000/= which was paid on 30th November, 2004. The defendants have not shown any sufficient cause to warrant the granting of an order of stay of execution, this application is dismissed for lacking in merit with costs to the respondent.
Ruling read and signed at NAIROBI this 7th August, 2009.
M. K. KOOME
JUDGE