[2009] KEHC 1203 (KLR)
The court found that the security deposit was made pursuant to a consent order between the parties, and such an order can only be varied by consent or set aside if vitiated by fraud or other vitiating factors, none of which were present in this case. Furthermore, the application was defective as one of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1203 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Continental Developers Ltd.; Respondent: Adan Dadacha Karacha; Respondent: Fagiche Fijogutu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 866 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Release of Security Deposit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- GG Okwengu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Consent Orders, Security for Judgment, Delay in Prosecution, Substitution of Parties
- 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
Continental Developers Ltd.
Appellant
Adan Dadacha Karacha
Respondent
Fagiche Fijogutu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Release of Security Deposit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the money deposited as security pursuant to a consent order should be released to the respondents' advocates.
- 2 Whether the appellant's delay in prosecuting the appeal justifies release of the security deposit.
- 3 Whether the consent order can be varied or set aside in the absence of fraud or other vitiating factors.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the security deposit was made pursuant to a consent order between the parties, and such an order can only be varied by consent or set aside if vitiated by fraud or other vitiating factors, none of which were present in this case. Furthermore, the application was defective as one of the respondents was deceased and had not been substituted, meaning the applicant's advocates lacked proper instructions. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application for release of the security deposit and dismissed it with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application for release of the security deposit is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD.…………….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
ADAN DADACHA KARACHA………………..1ST RESPONDENT
FAGICHE FIJOGUTU…………………………..2ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. By a Notice of Motion dated 18th August, 2009, Omangi Musanga & Co. Advocates who claim to be the advocates for the respondents, Adan Dadacha Karacha and Fagiche Fijogutu, seeks to have the money which was deposited into a joint interest earning account, pursuant to a consent order released to the firm of Omangi Musanga & Co. Advocates. The money was deposited as security pursuant to an application which was made by the appellant for stay of execution.
2. The application now before me is anchored on the following grounds:
(i) That the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal filed herein on 2nd November, 2005.
(ii) That the appellant’s delay in prosecuting the appeal herein is an infringement of the applicant’s right to enjoy the fruits of the judgment entered against the appellant for the sum of Kshs.233,356/= and interest thereon since 18th October, 2005.
(iii) That the said appeal is an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.
(iv) That the appellant has not bothered to file record of appeal.
3. The application is also supported by an affidavit sworn by Cheryl Onindo, who swears that the appellant has not taken any action to prosecute his appeal and only intends to frustrate and delay the respondent from reaping the fruits of his judgment.
4. Upon being served with the application, the respondent filed a record of appeal. A replying affidavit was also sworn by Harun Muturi a director of the appellant company in which he depones that the money was deposited into Court pursuant to a consent order agreed upon by both parties. The appellant therefore maintains that the application is an abuse of the Court process as the consent order cannot be altered or varied unless the same is vitiated by fraud. It is further deponed that one of the respondents Adan Dadacha Karacha is deceased and has not been substituted.
5. There was no further affidavit filed in response to the replying affidavit. The appellant’s contention that one of the respondents is deceased has therefore not been disputed. If that be so, then unless that particular respondent has been substituted the firm of Omangi Musanga & Co. Advocates do not have proper instructions.
6. Further I have perused the Court record and do find that the parties agreed by consent to have the decretal sum deposited in Court and later into an interest earning account. It follows that that order can only be varied by consent of the parties, or set aside if the same is vitiated by fraud or any other vitiating factor, none of which obtains herein.
7. For the above reasons, I find no merit in this application and do therefore dismiss it with costs.
Dated and delivered this 23rd day of October, 2009.
H. M. OKWENGU
JUDGE
In the presence of: -
Advocate for the appellant/respondent, absent
Ombae for the respondent/applicant
Eric, court clerk