[2017] KEHC 10063 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 10063 (KLR)

The court found that while the plaintiff's advocate failed to disclose the interest element received, this information was not beyond the reach of the defendant or its advocates, as both firms were joint account holders. The defendant's advocates could have obtained the full facts regarding payments made before...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 10063 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Cyrus M. Kamau; Defendant: Universal F and B Contractors Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 1730 of 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 6th June 2017
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgment, Consent Orders, Non Disclosure, Interest on Debts
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Execution of Judgment Consent Orders Non Disclosure Interest on Debts

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyrus M. Kamau

Plaintiff

Universal F and B Contractors Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 6th June 2017

  1. 1 Whether the court should restrain execution against the defendant/applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment debt has been fully settled by the defendant/applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the overpaid amount should be refunded to the defendant/applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the plaintiff's advocate failed to disclose the interest element received, this information was not beyond the reach of the defendant or its advocates, as both firms were joint account holders. The defendant's advocates could have obtained the full facts regarding payments made before negotiating the consent. The court held that the defendant's lack of diligence in ascertaining the total payments, including interest, does not warrant setting aside or varying the consent order. There was no sufficient evidence of fraud or misrepresentation to vitiate the consent. Consequently, the court declined to grant the orders sought in the motion, including restraining...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 6th June 2017 is dismissed with costs.