[2022] KEHC 16554 (KLR)
The court found that both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant failed to fully comply with the terms of their loan agreement: the plaintiffs defaulted on repayment, while the 1st defendant delayed disbursing the final portion of the loan, which contributed to the default. The court held that neither party should...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16554 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kishor Ramji Hiram; Plaintiff: Priyash Hirani; Defendant: Jubilee Insurance Company Limited; Defendant: Forefront Agencies
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 761 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Partially in favour of both plaintiffs and 1st defendant; equitable apportionment of security and discharge of title.
- Judges
- WA Okwany
- Legal Topics
- Loan Default, Security for Debt, Account Reconciliation, Contractual Breach
- 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
Kishor Ramji Hiram
Plaintiff
Priyash Hirani
Plaintiff
Jubilee Insurance Company Limited
Defendant
Forefront Agencies
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant complied with the terms of their loan agreement.
- 2 Whether either party should benefit from the delay in finalizing the case and the accrual of interest.
- 3 What amount is due and owing to the 1st defendant as at the time of filing the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant failed to fully comply with the terms of their loan agreement: the plaintiffs defaulted on repayment, while the 1st defendant delayed disbursing the final portion of the loan, which contributed to the default. The court held that neither party should benefit from the protracted delay in resolving the dispute, including the accrual of excessive interest. The court determined that the amount due to the 1st defendant as at the time of filing the suit was Kes 11,378,993.95. It ordered that this sum be paid to the 1st defendant from the security deposited in court, and that the remaining balance be split equally between the...
Court Disposition
Partially in favour of both plaintiffs and 1st defendant; equitable apportionment of security and discharge of title.
Orders
- Kes 11,378,993.95 out of the amount deposited as security to be paid directly to the 1st defendant.
- The remaining balance after payment of Kes 11,378,993.95 to be split equally between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
Hiram & another (Suing as the legal representative, administrator of the Estate of Ramji Govind Hiram) v Jubilee Insurance Company Limited & another (Civil Case 761 of 1999) [2022] KEHC 16554 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (21 December 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16554 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)
Commercial and Tax
Civil Case 761 of 1999
WA Okwany, J
December 21, 2022
Between
Kishor Ramji Hiram
1st Plaintiff
Priyash Hirani
2nd Plaintiff
Suing as the legal representative, administrator of the Estate of Ramji Govind Hiram
and
Jubilee Insurance Company Limited
1st Defendant
Forefront Agencies
2nd Defendant
Judgment
1. Pursuant to this court’s orders issued in the partial judgment delivered on December 8, 2022, parties were directed to file their respective statements of account specifying the amount due to the 1st defendant as at the time Kes 5. 8. million was deposited by the plaintiffs in court as security.
2. As at the time of writing this final orders, only the plaintiffs had filed their statement of account.
3. Doing the best that I can with the available material and information, I make the following final orders/observations.
4. I find that both the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant did not fully comply with the terms of their agreement. I note that while it was not disputed that the plaintiff did not repay the loan as agreed, the 1st defendant, on its part, delayed in disbursing the final bit of the loan thereby precipitating the Plaintiffs’ default and the sequence of events that culminated in the filing of this case.
5. I further note that parties did not also seize the opportunity to reconcile their accounts in time or at all, but opted to take the route of a protracted court case that ended up lasting for over two(2) decades. In the circumstances of this case, I find that none of the parties should benefit from the delay in finalizing the case as was suggested by the 1st defendant who claimed that its debt had accrued interest that ballooned to over Kes 200 million.
6. In conclusion, I find that the amount due and owing to the 1st Defendant as at the time of filing the suit was Kes 11,378,993. 95.
7. Having regard to my finding that both sides were to blame for the breach of the loan contract, I direct/order that the sum of Kes 11,378,993. 95 out of the amount deposited as security be paid directly to the 1st defendant and that the remaining balance, after the payment of the aforesaid sum of Kes 11,378,993. 95, be split equally between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. For clarity purposes, the plaintiffs will receive 50% of the balance while the other 50% shall be paid to the 1st defendant.
8. The plaintiffs’ title held by the 1st defendant shall be discharged and released to the plaintiffs.
9. Each party shall bear its own costs of the suit.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Nairobi this 21st Day of December 2022. W. A. OKWANYJUDGEIn the presence of: -Mr. Okoth for 1st defendant.Mr. Osiemo for the plaintiff.Court Assistant- Godfrey