[2023] KEHC 224 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 224 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent was aware of the proceedings and the taxed costs but failed to pay or demonstrate good faith in settling the decretal sum. The respondent's claim of part payment was unsubstantiated, as the cheque issued was dishonoured and no evidence to the contrary was provided. Although the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 224 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans Juma Matunda t/a E.M. Juma Ombui Advocates; Respondent: African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E58 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Execution Application
Outcome
application allowed in part
Judges
JM Ngugi
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Advocate Client Costs, Warrants of Execution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Execution of Decree Advocate Client Costs Warrants of Execution

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Juma Matunda t/a E.M. Juma Ombui Advocates

Applicant

African Merchant Assurance Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Execution Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders permitting breaking into the respondent's premises to execute the certificate of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has made any part payment towards the decretal sum.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of valid warrants at the time of hearing precludes granting the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was aware of the proceedings and the taxed costs but failed to pay or demonstrate good faith in settling the decretal sum. The respondent's claim of part payment was unsubstantiated, as the cheque issued was dishonoured and no evidence to the contrary was provided. Although the warrants had expired by the time of hearing, the court held that it would be overly technical to deny substantive justice on this basis. The respondent's conduct made it impossible for the applicant to execute the decree. Therefore, the court ordered the respondent to pay the entire decretal sum within 14 days, failing which the applicant would be at liberty to reapply for fresh...

Court Disposition

application allowed in part

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the entire decretal sum to the applicant within 14 days of the date of the ruling.
  • In default of payment, the applicant is at liberty to reapply for issuance of warrants to execute the certificate of costs dated March 10, 2021.