[2021] KEHC 231 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 231 (KLR)

The court found that the firm of Nyachoti and Company Advocates, which recorded the consent judgment, was not on record for the 4th Defendant and had no instructions from him to enter into the consent. The 4th Defendant was at all material times represented by Wandugi and Company Advocates, and there was no evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 231 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Development Bank of Kenya Limited; Defendant: Riva Oils Company Limited; Defendant: Ezekiel Karisa Kitsao; Defendant: Samuel Kazungu Kambi; Defendant: David Komen Tuitoek
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Commercial Civil Case 59 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Consent Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; consent judgment and decree set aside only as against the 4th Defendant; no order as to costs.
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Setting Aside Orders, Authority of Advocate, Representation of Parties, Summary Judgment, Decree Amendment
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Consent Judgment Setting Aside Orders Authority of Advocate Representation of Parties Summary Judgment Decree Amendment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Development Bank of Kenya Limited

Plaintiff

Riva Oils Company Limited

Defendant

Ezekiel Karisa Kitsao

Defendant

Samuel Kazungu Kambi

Defendant

David Komen Tuitoek

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Set Aside Consent Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the consent judgment and subsequent decree should be set aside as against the 4th Defendant due to lack of authority of the advocate who recorded the consent.
  2. 2 Whether the entire consent judgment should be set aside or only in respect of the 4th Defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the 4th Defendant is entitled to costs for the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the firm of Nyachoti and Company Advocates, which recorded the consent judgment, was not on record for the 4th Defendant and had no instructions from him to enter into the consent. The 4th Defendant was at all material times represented by Wandugi and Company Advocates, and there was no evidence that he authorized the consent. Therefore, the consent judgment and subsequent decree could not bind the 4th Defendant. However, the consent was valid as against the 1st and 3rd Defendants, for whom Nyachoti and Company Advocates had authority. The court held that the consent judgment and decree should be set aside only in respect of the 4th Defendant, and the decree amended...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; consent judgment and decree set aside only as against the 4th Defendant; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Consent Judgment dated 2nd February 2016 is amended only to the extent that the 4th Defendant is removed from the consent and the consent judgment against him is set aside.
  • The Decree issued on 12th April 2016 shall be amended accordingly.