[2014] KEHC 8062 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd Defendant had previously been granted indulgence to pay the decretal sum by instalments but failed to comply with the payment schedule. A subsequent similar application was dismissed as an abuse of process. The present application was deemed a continuation of the same pattern, intended...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8062 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Bosco Ngeta Maundu; Defendant: William Wambua Kiwia; Defendant: Charles Mutuku; Defendant: Baumanns Limited; Defendant: The Attorney-General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 1165 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Payment of Decretal Sum by Instalments
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff; interim stay of execution set aside
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Decrees, Payment by Instalments, Abuse of Process
- 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
John Bosco Ngeta Maundu
Plaintiff
William Wambua Kiwia
Defendant
Charles Mutuku
Defendant
Baumanns Limited
Defendant
The Attorney-General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Payment of Decretal Sum by Instalments
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant should be allowed to pay the decretal sum by monthly instalments of KShs 50,000 for twelve months.
- 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd Defendant had previously been granted indulgence to pay the decretal sum by instalments but failed to comply with the payment schedule. A subsequent similar application was dismissed as an abuse of process. The present application was deemed a continuation of the same pattern, intended to delay or avoid payment of the decretal sum. The court held that granting further indulgence would perpetuate abuse of the court's process and undermine the finality of judgments. Therefore, the application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff, and any interim stay of execution was set aside.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff; interim stay of execution set aside
Orders
- The notice of motion dated 13/11/2013 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Decree-Holder.
- Any interim stay of execution in place is hereby set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
MISC APPLICATION NO. 1165 OF 2003
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATIONS ACT 1995
JOHN BOSCO NGETA MAUNDU........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. WILLIAM WAMBUA KIWIA
2. CHARLES MUTUKU
3. BAUMANNS LIMITED
4. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL......................................DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
1. This ruling concerns the notice of motion dated 13/11/2013 filed by the 2nd Defendant/Judgment-Debtor, Charles Mutuku. He seeks two main orders as follows -
(a) Prayer 4: That the court do allow him to offset the balance of the decretal sum by way of monthly installments of KShs 50,000/- per month “for the next twelve (12) months commencing the 10th January 2014”.
(b) Prayer 5: That consequent to the grant of prayer 4 the court do issue further directions on settlement of the balance of the decretal sum after payment of the proposed instalments set out in prayer 4.
The application in supported by the 2nd Defendant’s affidavit.
2. The application is opposed by the Plaintiff/Decree-Holder by replying affidavit filed on 24th January 2014. In response to this affidavit the 2nd Defendant filed a supplementary affidavit (titled further affidavit) on 4th February 2014. In his turn the Plaintiff filed a further replying affidavit on 7th February 2014. I have read all these affidavits.
3. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Those of the 2nd Defendant were filed on 17th April 2014 while the Plaintiff’s submissions were filed on 27th May 2014. I have considered those submissions. I have also perused as much of the huge court record as I could.
4. As I observed during the proceedings of 17th February 2014, this matter has already taken up an inordinate amount of the court’s time. There have been numerous applications by the 2nd Defendant since the decree was passed against him in the year 2003. These applications have included at least two previous applications seeking the court’s indulgence to pay the decretal sum by instalments. On 15th March 2010 the 2nd Defendant had been extended the indulgence to pay the decree by instalments. He never adhered to the schedule of payment allowed.
5. A second similar application for payment by installments was by notice of motion dated 17th October 2012. In a considered ruling dated and delivered on14th December 2012 running to some fifteen (15) typed pages the Court (Odunga, J) dismissed the application with costs. In doing so the learned judge observed as follows –
“In this case the responded has been baby-sitting a barren decree since the year 2003. Although the court granted the applicant indulgence to settle the decretal sum by instalments, instead of doing so, the applicant decided to engage the respondent in further legal proceedings hence accruing more costs. Instead of complying with the order of the court granting the applicant indulgence to settle the decretal sum by way of instalments, the applicant has presented the present application. In my view there can be no worse form of abuse of the process of the court than this....”
7. I hold the same sentiments regarding the 2nd Defendant’s latest application by notice of motion dated 13th November 2013. It is an abuse of the process court by a judgment-debtor who is apparently determined to manipulate the process of the court in order to avoid or delay indefinitely full payment of the decretal sum. The 2nd Defendant has succeeded in doing precisely that the last ten (10) years. He should not be permitted to do so any longer!
8. The notice of motion dated 13/11/2013 is not only an abuse of the process of the court; it also lacks merit. A previous similar indulgence to pay by instalments was not met. A subsequent application for similar indulgence was dismissed for being an abuse of the court’s process. Why should further indulgence be granted now? The application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Decree-Holder. Any interim stay of execution in place is hereby set aside. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
H. P. G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY 2014