[2019] KEHC 469 (KLR)
The court found that its previous ruling mistakenly recorded that the appellant had complied with an order to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account, when in fact the appellant had not complied. This constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review under Order 45 of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 469 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Hebatula Brothers Ltd; Respondent: Michael Nguthu Kimwele
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 234 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Prior Ruling
- Outcome
- application allowed; stay of execution lifted; respondent at liberty to execute judgment; costs to respondent/applicant
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Stay of Execution, Non Compliance With Court Orders
- 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
Hebatula Brothers Ltd
Appellant
Michael Nguthu Kimwele
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Prior Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the court's previous ruling regarding compliance with a deposit order.
- 2 Whether the appellant's failure to deposit the decretal sum as ordered justified review of the previous ruling and lifting of the stay of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that its previous ruling mistakenly recorded that the appellant had complied with an order to deposit the decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account, when in fact the appellant had not complied. This constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that the failure to deposit the decretal sum exposed the appellant to execution and warranted lifting the stay of execution previously granted. The respondent was therefore entitled to execute the judgment, and the application for review was allowed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application allowed; stay of execution lifted; respondent at liberty to execute judgment; costs to respondent/applicant
Orders
- The application for review is allowed.
- The stay of execution is lifted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 234 OF 2017
HEBATULA BROTHERS LTD.......................................APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
MICHAEL NGUTHU KIMWELE...................................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
On 13th June, 2019 this court delivered a ruling which sought the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. In dismissing the application, the court ordered that the Deputy Registrar should facilitate the availability of the lower court record within 30 days from the date of that ruling, and on receipt of the proceedings the appellant should file the record of appeal within 30 days.
There is now before me an application by way of Notice of Motion under Order 45 Rules 1, 2 and 3 (2), Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking an order of review of the said ruling on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The reasons for seeking that order have been set out on the face of the application.
Parties decided to rely on the affidavit evidence and this court make a ruling based thereon.
I have gone through the supporting affidavit sworn by the advocate for the applicant and also the replying affidavit sworn by the advocate for the respondent. In the ruling complained of, I referred to a ruling by Sergon J, delivered on 10th November, 2017 where the appellant, in an application for stay of execution, was ordered to deposit the decretal sum in an interest earning account in the joint names of the advocates on record. I observed in the ruling that this was done.
The applicant has now brought to the attention of the court that the appellant has not complied with that order. Clearly, that is a mistake on the face of the record. To date, the record of appeal has not been filed as ordered by both Sergon J, and this court. That is default on the part of the appellant which has not been explained.
In the ruling of this court dated 13th June, 2019, I observed that the delay in filing the appeal was to be blamed on the lower court in the failure to transmit the proceedings to the High Court. That remains the position, and as I said the appellant has the right of appeal. The impairment visited upon the respondent at this stage is that he is unable to execute his judgment. On the other hand, the appellant is making no steps to advance the appeal process.
Having failed to deposit the decretal as ordered by Sergon J, on 10th November, 2017 and this court having mistakenly observed that the appellant had complied, there is every reason that this court reviews its ruling made on 13th June, 2019.
The effect of failure to deposit the decretal sum is to expose the appellant to the execution process and so, to ensure that the appellant takes full responsibility and consequences of default, while maintaining the right to appeal, the stay of execution is now lifted. The Respondent is now at liberty to execute the judgment against the appellant. The end result is that this application is allowed with costs to the respondent/applicant.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of November, 2019.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE