[1985] KEHC 110 (KLR)
The court found that due to insufficient information regarding the transaction and conflicting statements from the parties, it was unable to determine whether the decretal amount had been fully paid or who was responsible for the costs and encumbrances related to the transfer of LR 65/482. As a result, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1985] KEHC 110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Commercial Bank; Defendant: Nyahururu Blocks & Iron Mongers; Defendant: C S Mwangi Simba
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 376 of 1978
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Execution and Payment Dispute
- Outcome
- No conclusive determination; matter unresolved due to insufficient information.
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Judgment, Decretal Amounts, Costs of Transfer, Sale of Security
- 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
Plaintiff
Nyahururu Blocks & Iron Mongers
Defendant
C S Mwangi Simba
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Execution and Payment Dispute
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decretal amount has been fully paid by the judgment debtor.
- 2 Who bears responsibility for the costs and encumbrances related to the transfer of LR 65/482.
- 3 Whether there is an excess payment that should be refunded to the judgment debtor.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that due to insufficient information regarding the transaction and conflicting statements from the parties, it was unable to determine whether the decretal amount had been fully paid or who was responsible for the costs and encumbrances related to the transfer of LR 65/482. As a result, the court could not make a definitive ruling on the alleged excess payment or the relief sought by the judgment debtor.
Court Disposition
No conclusive determination; matter unresolved due to insufficient information.
Orders
- No orders as to refund or discharge of debt are made due to lack of sufficient information.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
Kenya Commercial Bank v Nyahururu Blocks & Iron Mongers
High Court, at Nairobi April 15, 1985
Masime J
Civil Case No 376 of 1978
April 15, 1985, Masime J delivered the following Ruling.
On October 2, 1984 the decree-holders advocates by letter to the deputy registrar requested that this case be mentioned to consider the position of the execution ordered. A mentions date was taken for November 11, 1984. In the meantime on November 19, 1984 the really outstanding judgment debtor C S Mwangi Simba wrote to the court
complaining that as a result of the execution orders made and payments emanating from various ends there was an excess payment of Kshs 54,535. 55 not accounted for and which ought to be refunded to him; Mr Simba annexed to his letter certain vouchers the effect of which are that the counsel for the decree holder is holding some Kshs 54,535. 35 which he has not accounted to the decree-holder and alleges that he considers the debt cleared and he should be declared relieved of it; he also claims the costs of the mentions to deal with the matter.
Mr Mahinda in reply indicated that LR 6585/482 was sold for Kshs 35,000 out of the proceeds of sale some Kshs 7,004 was paid as land rent and Kshs 18, 085. 95 was claimed by Nyahururu Municipal Council in respect of arrears of Land rent and interest; the Council may waive the interest if the full Council approves the decision of the appropriate Committee further a sum of Kshs 5,689. 60 went to costs of trying to sell the security before the case was filled while the salary attachment totaling some Kshs 13,488. 50 went towards the costs of the suit.
I have considered the information furnished by both parties. The main dispute relates to the costs of transferring LR 65/482 and the encumbrances thereon – I regret that I do not have sufficient information about that transaction to enable me determine whose responsibility the charges for the transfer was. In the result I am unable to say whether the decretal amount has or has not been paid up in view of the conflicting statements of the parties.