[2018] KECA 343 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 343 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the foreign judgment sought to be registered in Kenya arose from a contractual indemnity between the parties, not from a claim for personal injuries, and thus was not barred by section 3(3)(b) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act. The English court had jurisdiction...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KECA 343 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Dhanjal Investments Limited; Respondent: Cosmos Holidays PLC
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 317 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judges
J Wakiaga
Legal Topics
Foreign Judgments Enforcement, Contractual Indemnity, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Res Judicata, Registration of Foreign Judgments
Source Language
en
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Foreign Judgments Enforcement Contractual Indemnity Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Res Judicata Registration of Foreign Judgments

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dhanjal Investments Limited

Appellant

Cosmos Holidays PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a foreign judgment enforceable in Kenya under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act in the circumstances of this case?
  2. 2 Does section 3(3)(b) of the Act bar registration of a foreign judgment relating to personal injuries?
  3. 3 Did the English court have jurisdiction under section 4(1) of the Act to adjudicate the claim?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the foreign judgment sought to be registered in Kenya arose from a contractual indemnity between the parties, not from a claim for personal injuries, and thus was not barred by section 3(3)(b) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act. The English court had jurisdiction under section 4(1) of the Act because Dhanjal voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction by contract and participation in the proceedings. The exclusive jurisdiction clause was valid and enforceable, as there was no evidence of coercion, fraud, or undue influence, and Kenyan courts generally respect such clauses. The previous winding up petition did not finally determine the issue...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The registration of the foreign judgment is upheld.