Keiyo Teachers Co-operative Savings and Credit Society v Ojal & 7 others (Environment and Land Case 253 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4257 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling)

Keiyo Teachers Co-operative Savings and Credit Society v Ojal & 7 others (Environment and Land Case 253 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4257 (KLR) (9 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4257 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case 253 of 2012 CK Yano, J July 9, 2026 Between Keiyo Teachers Co-operative Savings And Credit Society Plaintiff and Andrew Ojal 1st Defendant Dishon Ndimuli 2nd Defendant Hosea Bett 3rd Defendant Kennedy Tomno 4th Defendant Hon Commissioner Of Prisons 5th Defendant Hon Attorney General 6th Defendant National Social Security Fund 7th Defendant The Moi Teaching & Referral Hospital Limited 8th Defendant Ruling 1.The Plaintiff/Applicant filed the present application vide a Notice of Motion dated 17th April, 2026 against the 7th defendant/respondent seeking the following orders: -1.Spent.2.That the Honourable Court be pleased to give an interpretation as to whether the rate of interest applicable on the principal sum awarded to the plaintiff/decree-holder/applicant in this suit should run from the date of filing this suit and/or from the date of the introduction of the 7th defendant/judgment-debtor/respondent in this suit.3.That this Honourable Court be pleased to direct the rate of interest applicable on the: -a.Principal sum awarded to the plaintiff/decree-holder/applicant in this suit at 14% p.a. from the date of filing this suit.b.Taxed costs awarded to the plaintiff/ decree-holder/applicant in this suit and the Court of Appeal at 14% p.a. from the date of filing this suit.c.Costs of this application to the plaintiff/decree-holder/applicant. 2.The application is premised on 9 grounds on the face thereof and on the Supporting Affidavit evenly dated and sworn by one Thomas Kiptoo Rotich, the Chairperson of the plaintiff/decree-holder/applicant. 3.The applicant deponed that the dispute herein was heard and determined vide the judgment of this court (differently constituted) rendered on 05.02.2020 in favor of the plaintiff/decree-holder/applicant and a decree issued on 09.04.2020 to that effect. 4.That the said judgment and decree culminated in the filing of an appeal by the 7th defendant/judgment-debtor/respondent vide Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. ELD E076 of 2020. The said appeal was subsequently dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. 5.It is the applicant’s claim that they have been unable to agree on the rate of interest applicable; whether the same should be 14% p.a. or 12% p.a; whether the interest rate is applicable from the date of filing the suit on 27.04.2006 or on 23.02.2022 and whether the interest should accrue on principal sum from the date of filing the suit, hence the present application. 6.In conclusion, they urged the court to allow the application and to grant the reliefs as sought. 7.The application was opposed. The 7th defendant/respondent filed a Replying Affidavit dated 24th April, 2026 and sworn by Kellen Njue, the General Manager Legal Services and Corporation Secretary of the 7th defendant, in response to the application. 8.She confirmed that this court and the Court of Appeal ordered that the plaintiff be refunded the sum of Kshs. 50,111,880/-together with interest from the date of filing the suit. It is however her contention that parties were unable to agree on the rate of interest applicable. 9.It was deponed that the rate of interest applicable should be 12%, which position she maintained was communicated to the plaintiff vide the letter dated 08.04.2026 and accepted vide the letter dated 13.04.2026. 10.On the issue on when the interest starts to accrue, it was her contention that the interests against the 7th defendant starts to accrue at the time the suit was filed against it, that is, 12.02.2011, when the amended plaint was filed enjoining the 7th defendant as a party to the suit and introduced the liquidated claim of Kshs. 50,111,880/= being the claim for refund of the purchase price. 11.She stated that the 7th defendant is ready and willing to pay the sum of Kshs. 50,111,880/= together with interest from 23.02.2011. 12.She thus admitted that what is pending is this court’s interpretation on when the interests starts to accrue and urged the court to find that the same starts to accrue from the date the 7th defendant was joined to the suit and should stop accruing as at 31.03.2026 when the Vendor’s Details Data Form was sent to the plaintiff for purposes of paying the undisputed sum. 13.On the issue of costs, it was her contention that the costs payable have not been taxed and ascertained and further, that there is no order either by this court or the Court of Appeal, ordering that an interest of 14% be paid from the date of filing the suit on the costs. 14.She therefore urged the court to dismiss the present application with costs. 15.The present application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The plaintiff/applicant filed its submissions dated 21.05.2026 while the 7th defendant/respondent filed their submissions dated 07.05.2026 together with authorities, which I have read and considered in arriving at my decision as hereunder. Analysis and Determination: 16.I have carefully considered the Application and the grounds therein, the Supporting Affidavit, the replying affidavit in response and the annexures thereto as well as the rival submissions in totality and I identify the following issues for determination: -i.What is the applicable rate of interest in the present case?ii.When does the interest on the decretal sum begin to accrue?iii.Who shall bear the costs of the present Application? 17.Having identified the above issues for determination, I will now proceed to discuss the same as hereunder. What is the applicable rate of interest in the present case; 18.At the center of this application is the issue of the applicable rate of interest. The parties herein have therefore sought this court’s interpretation on the said issue to enable them settle the payment of the decree. 19.It is the plaintiff/applicant’s contention that the rate of interest applicable in the present suit should be 14% p.a. The 7th defendant/respondent on the other hand avers that the rate of interest applicable should be 12% p.a. 20.The issue for determination is therefore whether the rate of interest applicable should be 12% p.a., 14% p.a or a different rate as this court seeks to ascertain. 21.Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act provides for the issue of interest and states as follows: -“(1)Where and in so far as a decree is for the payment of money, the court may, in the decree, order interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of the suit to the date of the decree in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.(2)Where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such aggregate sum as aforesaid from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the court shall be deemed to have ordered interest at 6 per cent per annum.” 22.From section 26(1) above, it is evident that the Act does not specify a particular rate of interest to be applied in a straight-line formula but rather leaves the same to the discretion of the court, which discretion must be exercised judiciously and within legal limits as it deems reasonable. 23.In support of its claim of a rate of interest at 14% p.a. the applicant has relied on the correspondences exchanged by counsel for the parties in an effort to reach an agreement on the issue of interest rate and settle the decree. 24.The 7th defendant/respondent on its part has averred that during negotiations, parties did agree that the applicable rate should be 12%. That the counsel for the 7th respondent vide a letter dated 08.04.2026, made the proposition that was communicated and accepted by the applicants through their advocate in a letter dated 13.04.2026. They therefore aver that the application is a delaying tactic on the part of the applicant for the decretal sum to earn more interest. 25.It is common ground that the judgment dated 5/2/2020 and subsequent decree issued thereto on 9/4/2020 did not specify the rate of interest applicable in the payment of the decretal sum. What therefore happens in the absence of the rate being specified is what this court seeks to determine. 26.The Court of Appeal in the case of Kipchumba v BOG Tambach Teachers Training College [2023] KECA 802 (KLR) while dealing with a similar issue of the applicable rate of interest relied on the Chief Justice Practice Direction No. 1 of 1982 and went on to hold as follows: -“ 34.What then should the appropriate interest rate be? The appellant has suggested 12% as the current court rates while the respondent aligns with the judgment of the learned Judge that the applicable interest rate is 6%. In the circumstances of the present case, we rely on our rich jurisprudence and judicial practices to determine what the appropriate interest rate on liquidated damages is. The rate used by the courts, absent special or exceptional circumstances is 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full. See: Orix Oil (Kenya) Limited, Autolog Kenya Limited v Navisat Telematics (Kenya) Limited [2013] eKLR and Permuga Auto Spares & another v Margaret Korir Tagi[2016] eKLR. 35.From the foregoing, we find that the applicable interest rate in this case is 12% per annum...” 27.Thus, guided by the Court of Appeal decision above, this court finds that the applicable rate of interest in the present case is 12% p.a. When does the interest on the decretal sum begin to accrue? 28.The second issue which is in dispute herein is on the time when the interest should accrue from. While the applicant contends that the same should accrue from the date of filing the suit in 2006, the 7th respondent avers that the same should accrue from the date when it was joined in the suit in the year 2011. 29.Section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act above provides that interest is to be paid on the principal /decretal sum ordered from the date of the suit to the date of the decree. 30.In the instant suit, it is not in dispute that the suit was filed in 2006. However, at the said time, it is also not in dispute that the 7th defendant/respondent was not a party in the suit. 31.The 7th defendant was only joined in the suit in 2011, upon the amendment of the plaint to include it. In essence therefore, the 7th defendant only became aware of and became a party in the suit against it when it was joined into the suit in 2011. 32.As a result, therefore, it is my considered opinion that interest in the principal sum awarded herein should accrue from 23.02.2011 and not in 2006.iii.Who shall bear the costs of the present Application; 33.The general rule is that costs shall follow the event in accordance with the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless the court is satisfied otherwise. 34.Having answered the questions sought in the application herein which basically sought the interpretation of orders issued by the court, this court directs that parties bear their own costs. Conclusion: 35.In view of the foregoing, this court orders as follows:-a.That the rate of interest applicable in the present case is 12% p.a.b.The interest rate in (a) above shall accrue from 23.02.2011.c.Each party to bear its own costs of the application. 36.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.HON. C.K. YANOJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of: -Mr. Cheptarus for the Plaintiff/ApplicantMr. Kitiwa for the 7th DefendantNo appearance for 1st -6th & 8th Defendants.Court Assistant – Laban