[2015] KEHC 6327 (KLR)
The court found that its earlier ruling failed to specify that the 1st Defendant had already been fully paid, constituting an error on the face of the record. Upon review, the court clarified that liability between the 1st and 2nd Defendants was apportioned equally (50:50) on the principal sum of Ksh.346,436/-,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6327 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elizabeth Wanjugu Mungara; Defendant: Antony Maina Kariuki; Defendant: Muchemi Mugeni
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 595 of 1988
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Correction/review of Earlier Judgment Regarding Apportionment of Sums Due
- Outcome
- Application for correction/review granted; sums and interest apportioned as specified; costs awarded to 2nd Defendant.
- Judges
- DA Onyancha
- Legal Topics
- Review of Judgment, Apportionment of Liability, Costs Award, Interest Distribution
- 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
Elizabeth Wanjugu Mungara
Plaintiff
Antony Maina Kariuki
Defendant
Muchemi Mugeni
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Correction/review of Earlier Judgment Regarding Apportionment of Sums Due
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court's earlier ruling omitted to specify that the 1st Defendant had been fully paid.
- 2 How the sums deposited in court should be apportioned between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant after deduction of costs.
- 3 How accrued interest should be distributed between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that its earlier ruling failed to specify that the 1st Defendant had already been fully paid, constituting an error on the face of the record. Upon review, the court clarified that liability between the 1st and 2nd Defendants was apportioned equally (50:50) on the principal sum of Ksh.346,436/-, resulting in Ksh.173,218/- each. After deducting Ksh.73,082/- in costs awarded to the 2nd Defendant by the Court of Appeal, the Plaintiff was entitled to Ksh.100,136/-. The total sum deposited in court was Ksh.286,800/-. After paying the Plaintiff, the balance of Ksh.186,664/- was due to the 2nd Defendant. The court further ordered that interest accrued on the deposited sum be...
Court Disposition
Application for correction/review granted; sums and interest apportioned as specified; costs awarded to 2nd Defendant.
Orders
- Ksh.100,136 to be paid to the Plaintiff.
- Ksh.186,664 to be paid to the 2nd Defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT NUMBER 595 OF 1988
ELIZABETH WANJUGU MUNGARA. …………...………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ANTONY MAINA KARIUKI. ………………………….. 1ST DEFENDANT
MUCHEMI MUGENI. …………...……………………… 2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
In this court’s Ruling dated 3rd December, 2012, I had at the undertaken to review the court’s earlier ruling to include the amount properly due to each Defendant in the suit. However, I inadvertently failed to indicate therein that the 1st Defendant had already been fully paid before the Ruling was made. That slip which clearly became an error on the face of the record, required correction.
Shah & Parekh Advocates had made an application to that end which was not opposed and it was granted but the court has todate never corrected the figures notwithstanding several written reminders.
Liability was fixed between the 1st and 2nd Defendant at 50:50 of the sum of Ksh.346,436/-. This brought out an equal sum of Ksh.173,218/- reduced by costs of Ksh.73,082/- awarded by the Court of Appeal to the 2nd Defendant. That left in favour of the Plaintiff (a reduced sum of Ksh.173,218/- minus 73,082) = Ksh.100,136/-
It is noted that by the order of court the Defendants had deposited in two banking institutions, a sum of Ksh.286,800/-.
With Ksh.100,136/- payable to the Plaintiff as indicated above, what goes to the 2nd Defendant will be Ksh.286,800/= Ksh.100,136/- going to the Plaintiff = Ksh.186,664/-.
I accordingly make the following corrective (reviewing) orders based on my ruling of 3rd December, 2012.
ORDERS
1. Ksh.100,136/ to be paid to the Plaintiff.
2. Ksh.186,664/- to be paid to the 2nd Defendant.
3. Interest accrued from the sum of Ksh.286,800/- in the two financial institutions todate, to be shared between the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant in the ratio of 35% to 65% respectively.
4. The 2nd Defendant is entitled to costs of the application dated 1st August, 2011 when the same to be agreed upon or be taxed and if already taxed, to be deducted from the sums due from the Plaintiff.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 4th day of March, 2015.
……………………………………………
D A ONYANCHA
JUDGE