[2004] KEHC 750 (KLR)
The court held that although both parties' counsels signed and filed the consent order purporting to reinstate the suit, it was never recorded by the Deputy Registrar and thus did not form part of the court record. As a result, the dismissal order remained in force and the suit was not reinstated. The failure to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 750 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: James Obande Owuor; Defendant: Kalara Oyugi Ang’awa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kisii
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 48 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Validate Consent Order and Set Aside Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Consent Orders, Reinstatement of Suit, Dismissal of Suit, Execution of Judgments
- 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
James Obande Owuor
Plaintiff
Kalara Oyugi Ang’awa
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Validate Consent Order and Set Aside Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the consent order dated 19th June 2003 was valid and effective to reinstate the suit.
- 2 Whether the warrant of arrest in execution was proper given the status of the consent order.
- 3 Whether failure by the Deputy Registrar to record the consent order invalidated its effect.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although both parties' counsels signed and filed the consent order purporting to reinstate the suit, it was never recorded by the Deputy Registrar and thus did not form part of the court record. As a result, the dismissal order remained in force and the suit was not reinstated. The failure to record the consent order, whether due to administrative error or the respondent's subsequent objection, rendered the consent ineffective. Therefore, the application to validate the consent order and set aside execution was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII
CIVIL CASE 48 OF 1994
JAMES OBANDE OWUOR …………………………………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KALARA OYUGI ANG’AWA ………………………………………. DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicants/Plaintiff application is for an order by the Court declaring that the consent order dated 19th June 2003 and filed on the same day is valid thereby invalidating orders of arrest in execution. The plaintiff’s case was dismissed by the court on 19th October 2000 under order 16 rule 6 CPC. On 28th January 2002 the plaintiff made an application to court to set aside the dismissal order and reinstate the suit. On 19th June 2003 counsels for both parties signed and filed a court order stating that the applicants/plaintiff application dated 28th June 2002 is allowed which in effect re-instated the suit. That order was filed but apparently it was not recorded by the Deputy Registrar as an order of the court. The defendant/respondent filed a Notice to Show Cause against the applicant and on 19/5/04 a warrant of arrest was issued. That is what prompted this application.
Mr. Kisera submitted that the court order reinstated the suit and as such no execution should take place. The court order was signed and filed and paid for though the order was not recorded. The mistake for not recording the consent was by the Deputy Registrar and not the applicant. The orders for warrant of arrest were therefore an abuse of the process of the court. Mr. Masese for Respondent admitted signing the consent order. He however said that he was duped by counsel for the applicant into signing it. He had no instructions from his client to enter into the court. On realizing this he promptly wrote to the court countermanding the consent and that is why it was not recorded.
There is no dispute that both consents signed the counsels signed the consent order and it was filed. However the same was never recorded by the Deputy Registrar as he should have done. It therefore as now do not form part of the court’s record which means the dismissal order still stands. The suit was not reinstated. True the Deputy Registrar should have recorded the consent order once it was filed. However Mr. Masese explained that he wrote to him countermanding the consent and probably that is why it was never made part of the proceedings. Though filed it is of no consequence until it is recorded.
In the circumstances the application is dismissed with costs.
Dated this 8th December 2004
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE