[2019] KEHC 5144 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had deposited the sum of Kshs.333,480 in compliance with conditions for stay pending appeal. The appeal was subsequently heard and allowed with costs, and the respondents did not provide any legal basis or response to justify retention of the deposited sum. The court held that, in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 5144 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Gitonga Kithinji Muriuki; Respondent: Kings Capital Limited; Respondent: Stephen Kithinji Muhah; Respondent: Robert Waweru t/a Antique Auctioneers
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 638 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Decretal Sum
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Release of Decretal Sum, Injunctive Relief, Guarantee Liability, Attachment and Sale of Property
- 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
Gitonga Kithinji Muriuki
Appellant
Kings Capital Limited
Respondent
Stephen Kithinji Muhah
Respondent
Robert Waweru t/a Antique Auctioneers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Release of Decretal Sum
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of the decretal sum deposited in court.
- 2 Whether the respondents have any legal basis to claim the deposited sum after the appeal was allowed.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had deposited the sum of Kshs.333,480 in compliance with conditions for stay pending appeal. The appeal was subsequently heard and allowed with costs, and the respondents did not provide any legal basis or response to justify retention of the deposited sum. The court held that, in the absence of any opposition or demonstrated entitlement by the respondents, the applicant was entitled to the release of the decretal sum. The application was therefore allowed as prayed, and the funds ordered to be released to the applicant.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The decretal sum of Kshs.333,480 deposited in court is to be released to the applicant within 21 days.
- Each party to bear its own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2012
GITONGA KITHINJI MURIUKI..........................APPELLANT/APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
KINGS CAPITAL LIMITED................................................1ST RESPONDENT
STEPHEN KITHINJI MUHAH...........................................2ND RESPONDENT
ROBERT WAWERU T/A
ANTIQUE AUCTIONEERS.................................................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling is precipitated by the Notice of Motion dated 18th January, 2018 brought by the appellant/applicant herein. The Motion is supported by the grounds set out on its face and the facts deponed in the affidavit sworn by the applicant. The said appellant is seeking for an order for the release of the decretal sum of Kshs.333,480/= deposited in court on 26th November, 2018 and 13th December, 2012 respectively by himself. The applicant is also seeking for costs on his application.
2. When the application came up for hearing before this court on 16th July, 2019 Mr. Muriuki, learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the aforesaid Motion only affects the 1st and 3rd respondents. Mr. Mohamed, advocate for the 1st and 3rd respondents sought leave of this court to file a response to the application. The prayer was vehemently opposed by Muriuki, arguing that the application was filed way back in 2018 and to date there has been no response to the same.
3. This court declined to grant the prayer for leave sought on the basis that no plausible reason was offered for the failure on the part of the 1st and 3rd respondents to file a reply in good time. Consequently, the application stood unopposed and proceeded ex parte.
4. I have carefully considered both the grounds set out on the face of the Motion and the facts deponed in the affidavit in support thereof.
5. A brief background of the matter is that the applicant instituted a suit against the respondents herein before the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Nairobi vide Civil Case No. 6143 of 2012 seeking for a declaratory order and general damages over his motor vehicle which had been allegedly illegally and unlawfully attached by the 1st and 3rd defendants in respect of loans advanced to the 2nd respondent.
6. The applicant, while admitting to having guaranteed the first business loan advanced to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent in the sum of Kshs.400,000/= and further giving the particulars of his motor vehicle registration number KBN 234G (the subject motor vehicle), the 1st respondent sought to fraudulently attach the subject motor vehicle.
7. The applicant thereafter filed the application dated 12th October, 2012 seeking orders for an interlocutory injunction against the 1st and 2nd respondents, thereby compelling them to release the subject motor vehicle to him and further restraining them from disposing of the same pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
8. The trial court upon hearing the parties on the aforesaid application, declined to grant the orders sought, stating that the applicant had failed to establish a prima facie case.
9. Being aggrieved by the above decision, the applicant lodged this appeal. The said applicant equally filed an application seeking an order for stay of the ruling pending the hearing and determination of the said appeal.
10. In the end, this Court vide its ruling made on 26th November, 2012 and 13th December, 2013 respectively, granted the order for stay on condition that the applicant deposits the sum of Kshs.170,000/= and thereafter, the sum of Kshs.163,480/= in court following which the subject motor vehicle would be released to the applicant.
11. The applicant is now before this court seeking to have the abovementioned sums totaling Kshs.333,480/= released to it. In his affidavit, the applicant asserts that the appeal was heard and allowed on 31st March, 2017 with costs.
12. The applicant went further to assert that the respondents only released the subject motor vehicle after the intervention of police officers and that the 1st respondent has since failed to give a statement of account relating to the attachment and sale of certain goods belonging to the 2nd respondent.
13. It is also the applicant’s statement that the 1st respondent has no basis on which to lay claim over the money deposited in court.
14. It is not disputed that the applicant deposited the claimed sum in court on two (2) separate dates.
15. It is also not in dispute that the appeal before this court was heard and determined as alluded hereinabove. This court held interalia that the applicant had established the relevant principles for granting an injunctive order and having held so, allowed the appeal with costs.
16. In the circumstances, I see no reason as to why the decretal sum should not be released to the applicant.
17. The upshot is that the Motion is found to be meritorious. The same is allowed as prayed therefore it is ordered that the decretal sum of Kshs.333,480/= be released to the applicant within the next 21 days. Each party to cater for its own costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of July, 2019.
………….…………….
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
……………………………. for the Appellant/Applicant
……………………………. for the 1st and 3rd Respondents
……………………………. for the 2nd Respondent