[2017] KEHC 3305 (KLR)
The court found that the appeal had been settled by a consent recorded by counsel for both parties, and that the consent had not been challenged or set aside. The effect of such a consent is to finally determine the issues in dispute, and the court is bound to give effect to it unless there are grounds to set it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 3305 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kirere Estate Company Ltd; Respondent: Henry Maina Njoroge; Respondent: Peter Mwangi Wainaina; Respondent: Ben Kithinji; Respondent: Patrick Karanja Macharia; Respondent: Francis Mwangi Chege; Respondent: Muchoki Githutha
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal Appeal120 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Release of Security Deposit After Settlement by Consent
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LM Njuguna
- Legal Topics
- Consent Judgment, Release of Security, Settlement of Appeal
- 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
Kirere Estate Company Ltd
Applicant
Henry Maina Njoroge
Respondent
Peter Mwangi Wainaina
Respondent
Ben Kithinji
Respondent
Patrick Karanja Macharia
Respondent
Francis Mwangi Chege
Respondent
Muchoki Githutha
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Release of Security Deposit After Settlement by Consent
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the security deposit of Kshs. 58,320/= should be released to the appellant following settlement of the appeal by consent.
- 2 Whether the consent recorded by parties has the effect of finally determining the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the appeal had been settled by a consent recorded by counsel for both parties, and that the consent had not been challenged or set aside. The effect of such a consent is to finally determine the issues in dispute, and the court is bound to give effect to it unless there are grounds to set it aside, which were not present in this case. As the respondents did not oppose the application or appear at the hearing, and there was evidence of the security deposit, the court allowed the application for release of the security deposit to the appellant.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The application dated 19th June, 2017 is allowed.
- The security deposit of Kshs. 58,320/= is to be released to the appellant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2012
KIRERE ESTATE COMPANY LTD........................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
HENRY MAINA NJOROGE .......................................................1ST RESPONDENT
PETER MWANGI WAINAINA ....................................................2ND RESPONDENT
BEN KITHINJI .........................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
PATRICK KARANJA MACHARIA ..............................................4TH RESPONDENT
FRANCIS MWANGI CHEGE .....................................................5TH RESPONDENT
MUCHOKI GITHUTHA .............................................................6TH RESPONDENT
ALL T/A EIGHTY SEVEN INN
RULING
This is a ruling on an application filed by the Applicant by way of a Notice of Motion dated 19th June, 2017 under Order 42 Rule 6 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking an Order that the security deposited by the Appellant of Kshs. 58,320/= in the appeal be released to the Appellant. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of Simon Maina Kabuki a director of the Appellant company who avers that pursuant to an order issued on 28th February, 2013 for deposit of the taxed costs of Kshs. 58,320/=, the Appellant deposited the said sum and a deposit receipt of Kshs. 58,320/= is annexed to the Application.
The application for release of the funds is premised on the ground that the counsel for both parties recorded a consent on 4th October, 2016 settling the appeal.
I have read and considered the application and the Supporting Affidavit on record. The Respondents did not file a response to the Application after being served with the Application on 1st July 2017. There is on record an Affidavit of Service to that effect dated 23rd August, 2017. My perusal of the court file reveals that in deed it is true that the appeal was settled on 4th October, 2016 by a consent recorded by the counsels for the respective parties and this Court therefore marked the matter as settled.
The effect of a consent order or judgment is that it determines the issues in dispute with finality unless the same is challenged on clear grounds. The Court of Appeal inKenya Commercial Bank Limited vs Benjoh Amalgamated Limited & Another Civil Appeal NO. 276 OF 1997 [1998] eKLRcited with authority the judgment in the case of Flora Wasike vs Destimo Wamboko (1988)1 KAR 625, Hancox JA (as he then was) said in his judgment at page 626–
"It is now settled law that a consent judgment or order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify setting a contract aside, or if certain conditions remain to be fulfilled, which are not carried out.”
Also, in the case of Edward Acholla v Sogea Satom Kenya Branch & 2 others [2014] eKLR with respect to the effect of a consent, the court held that:
“Consent becomes a judgment or order of the court once adopted as such. Once consent is adopted by the court, it automatically changes character and becomes a consent judgment or order with contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify setting aside, or if certain conditions remain unfulfilled, which are not carried out.”
The consent recorded on 4th October, 2016 has not been challenged for any reasons whatsoever. When this matter came up for hearing on 28th September, 2017, the Respondent did not appear and this Court can only make a reasonable conclusion that once the Appeal was settled, the appellant did not have interest in the matter any longer.
The result of the foregoing is that the Application dated 19th June, 2017 is hereby allowed with no order on costs.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 29th Day of September, 2017.
…………………………….
L. NJUGUNA
JUDGE
In the Presence of
…………………………. for the Applicant
…………………………. for the 1st Respondent
…………………………. for the 2nd Respondent
…………………………. for the 3rd Respondent
…………………………. for the 4th Respondent
…………………………. for the 5th Respondent
…………………………. for the 6th Respondent