[2008] KEHC 3188 (KLR)
The court held that the dismissal of the main suit by the bank, with no appeal filed, extinguished the bank's right to claim any money or to continue holding the security (title deed) provided by the plaintiff in the counterclaim. The court found that the only fair and just order was to direct the bank to discharge...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Commercial Bank Limited; Defendant: Saabah Baraka Bakery Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 113 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Judgment on Counterclaim After Dismissal of Main Suit
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff in the counterclaim; order for release of security; no further orders as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Release of Security, Counterclaim Procedure
- 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
Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
Plaintiff
Saabah Baraka Bakery Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment on Counterclaim After Dismissal of Main Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the bank should be ordered to release the security (title deed) held as collateral to the plaintiff in the counterclaim.
- 2 Whether any further orders, including general damages or costs, should be made in favour of the plaintiff in the counterclaim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the dismissal of the main suit by the bank, with no appeal filed, extinguished the bank's right to claim any money or to continue holding the security (title deed) provided by the plaintiff in the counterclaim. The court found that the only fair and just order was to direct the bank to discharge and release the security, as both parties should be freed from the transaction. The court declined to address the issues of general damages or the legality of the interest rate, as these were either abandoned or rendered moot by the dismissal of the main suit. The court also made no further orders as to costs, adhering to the earlier order made upon dismissal of the main suit.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff in the counterclaim; order for release of security; no further orders as to costs.
Orders
- The bank (defendant in the counterclaim) is hereby ordered to discharge and release the plaintiff’s (in the counterclaim) title deed forthwith.
- No further orders as to costs; court will abide by the earlier order made upon the dismissal of the main suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUNGOMA
Civil Suit 113 of 1994
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SAABAH BARAKA BAKERY LIMITED................................ DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
Kenya Commercial Bank Limited hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff through Onyinkwa & Co. Advocates filed this suit in 1994 against the Defendant Company.
It was seeking to recover Ksh.2,762,424. 75 being the principal sum; interest thereon at 28% p.a until payment in full and costs and interest.
The Defendant filed a defence and counterclaim asking the court to dismiss the plaint and counterclaimed for general damages for breach of contract.
The main suit was dismissed by the court on 24th July, 2003 with costs of the suit being awarded to the Defendant. No appeal was filed against that dismissal. The Defendant proceeded to prosecute the counter-claim. This is now the judgment in respect of the said counter-claim.
On Fataki Sheikh Mohammed testified on behalf of the Plaintiff in the counterclaim. She narrated to the court how her company borrowed money from the bank in question at an agreed interest rate of 13% - 15%. She contended that they paid for the loan in full and the bank refused to give a statement of accounts to show how much had been paid and how much had not been paid. One of the prayers in the counterclaim was for the plaintiff bank to issue the said statement of account. They did not do so as ordered by the court. Counsel for the defendant conceded that this prayer was no longer tenable since the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. At the hearing of the counter-claim, PW1 asked the court to order that she be paid general damages for breach of contract and that the bank be ordered to release her securities. The claim for general damages was nonetheless not seriously pursued and in his final submission, counsel for the plaintiff(in the counterclaim) asked the court to only make orders for the release of the title deed which is still being held by the bank as security as that would be the fairest order to make since it will be difficult to quantify the general damages.
On its part, the bank called one witness who admitted that the bank is still holding the plaintiff’s security. He denied that the bank breached its contract but admitted that the bank could not unilaterally change the terms of the charge. It will be noted that the defendants counsel did not file any submission in reply to the Plaintiff’s written submission. I can only assume that they were in total agreement with the same.
I have carefully considered the evidence before me which includes the written submission by counsel for the plaintiff(in the counterclaim). It will not be necessary for me to discuss and make a finding on the issue of the legality or otherwise of the exorbitant interest rate levied by the bank on the plaintiff’s loan. This would have been an issue in the main suit which was nonetheless disposed off earlier. I will not deal with the issue of the general damages claimed by the plaintiff either since the plaintiff appears to have dropped it as indicated in the final submission. The only issue before me now is whether the bank should be ordered to release the security it continues holding to the plaintiff in the counterclaim.
To begin with, as the matter stands now, the bank cannot claim any money based on the charge dated 14th December, 1988 between itself and the plaintiff in this counterclaim or any other charge which formed the basis of the main suit herein. That issue was conclusively determined by the court when the main suit was dismissed. No appeal was filed against that dismissal and so that dismissal killed that suit and claim permanently. This therefore meant that the bank lost its power to foreclose or realize the security in respect of that claim. The bank has therefore no right to continue holding the plaintiff’s security. I agree with the plaintiff’s counsel that the only fair and just order that this court can make is to order for the discharge of the security and that both parties be freed from this transaction.
This in my view is a good case of any loss lying where it falls. Accordingly, I find in favour of the plaintiff in the counterclaim and enter judgment in its favour in the following terms:
a) That the bank (defendant in the counterclaim be and is hereby ordered to discharge and release the plaintiff’s (in the counterclaim) title deed forthwith.
b) That this court makes no further orders as to costs and will abide by the earlier order made upon the dismissal of the main suit.
W. KARANJA
JUDGE
DELIVERED, Signed and Dated at Bungoma this 12th day of February, 2008
in presence of Mr. Kakoi for the Defendant/Plaintiff in counterclaim.