[1999] KEHC 68 (KLR)
The court found that the rights of the applicant bank as chargee were fully protected in the ruling of 1.10.98 and were not interfered with. The only dissatisfaction expressed by the bank related to the manner of computation of the money recoverable, but the court had already given parties liberty to apply in case...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] KEHC 68 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Continental Developers Ltd; Defendant: Sauti Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd; Applicant: Co-Operative Bank
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 933 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Rights of Chargee, Execution of Decree
- 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
Plaintiff
Sauti Housing Co-Operative Society Ltd
Defendant
Co-Operative Bank
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, Co-Operative Bank, should be granted leave to appeal against the orders granted on 1.10.98.
- 2 Whether the rights of the bank as chargee were adequately protected in the ruling of 1.10.98.
- 3 Whether further delay caused by an appeal would be detrimental to the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the rights of the applicant bank as chargee were fully protected in the ruling of 1.10.98 and were not interfered with. The only dissatisfaction expressed by the bank related to the manner of computation of the money recoverable, but the court had already given parties liberty to apply in case of disagreement. The court further noted that the matter had been delayed for about a year, with accumulating interest and a depressed property market making it unlikely that the property would fetch sufficient funds to satisfy all debts. The court concluded that there were no valid grounds for appeal and that further delay would cause great loss to both the Decree Holder and...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- Leave to appeal is declined.
- The application by Co-Operative Bank is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 933 of 1996
CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD............................................................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SAUTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD................................ DEFENDANT
RULING
This is an application by Co-Operative Bank for leave to appealagainst orders granted on 1. 10. 98. The bank was not a party to the suit.The court however decided to give the Bank opportunity to be heard inrespect of the Decree Holder's application dated 3/9/97 seeking leave tosell some property which happened to be charged to the bank. The bankwas made a party to execution proceedings.
It is true that Mr. Gatonye orally applied for leave to appeal on1/10/98 after the Ruling was read. It is also true that Mr. Gatonye alsoorally applied for stay of execution.But the record shows that, after the application, Mr. Rachi appliedfor adjournment as it was 4. 20 p.m as he was going to take long to reply toMr. Gatonyes oral application. The application was stood over to the 6. 10. 98 but on that day.Mr. Gatonye applied for adjourment to get full 6. 10. 98 but on that day. Mr Gatonye applied for journment to get full instructions regarding the intended appeal.
The application for adjournment was granted and so Mr. Rachi did not reply to Mr. Gatonye's oral application.
Eventually Mr. Gatonye filed a formal application for stay of execution pending appeal and a temporary stay of execution pending appeal was granted pending the hearing of the application. The application has never been heard because over the time parties has sought time to find a buyer of the property. It would appear that the Judgement Debtor has been unsuccessful to get a buyer.
From the record it is not correct for Mr. Gatonye to say that the oralapplication for leave to appeal was not opposed. It was adjourned forsubmissions by Mr. Rachi but it appears that counsels got pre-occupied with attempts to get a buyer of the property, Mr. Rachi has now replied tothe formal application for leave to appeal and has opposed it.
I have considered all the circumstances of this case. 1 have takeninto account that in the Ruling dated 1. 10. 98 all the rights of the bank asthe chargee and under the charge were fully protected and were notinterfered with. The bank is only dissatisfied with the order regarding themanner of computation of the money recoverable. But court has givenparties liberty to apply in case of disagreement.
The matter has been delayed for about one year since the date of theRuling. Interest has been accumulating over the debt owed by J.D both tothe bank and to the Decree Holder.
Even at present and considering the depressed market of the real property,it is unlikely that the property will fetch sufficient funds to pay plaintifffully after paying the bank. An appeal will cause further delay. All thiswill be detrimental to the Judgment Debtor and to the plaintiff.
In the circumstances of the dispute, it is my view that there are novalid grounds for Appeal and any further delay will cause great loss toDecree Holder and Judgment Debtor.
Consequently; I decline to grant leave to the bank to appeal dismisses the application with costs.
G M. GITHINJI
JUDGE
19. 8.99