[2023] KEHC 22433 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 22433 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents failed to discharge their legal and evidentiary burden to prove payment of the decretal sum as required by law. Despite being given several opportunities, the respondents did not file any statement of accounts or provide proof of payment. The applicant's accounts showed a balance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 22433 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Lirona Construction Limited; Respondent: Francis Maliti (Sued as the then County Executive Committee Member, Finance & Economic Planning- Machakos County Government); Respondent: Grace Munguti (Sued as the County Secretary Of Machakos County Government)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 16 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to applicant; outstanding decretal sum and interest awarded to applicant
Judges
FROO Olel
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Mandamus Orders, Execution of Decrees, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Judicial Review Mandamus Orders Execution of Decrees Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lirona Construction Limited

Applicant

Francis Maliti (Sued as the then County Executive Committee Member, Finance & Economic Planning- Machakos County Government)

Respondent

Grace Munguti (Sued as the County Secretary Of Machakos County Government)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondents discharged their legal and evidentiary burden to prove payment of the decretal sum to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to the outstanding decretal sum and interest as per the decree.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' application for more time to settle the decretal sum based on reconciled accounts should be allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to discharge their legal and evidentiary burden to prove payment of the decretal sum as required by law. Despite being given several opportunities, the respondents did not file any statement of accounts or provide proof of payment. The applicant's accounts showed a balance of Kshs 6,111,294.55 remaining unpaid. The court held that the applicant is entitled to the outstanding sum together with interest at court rates as stipulated in the decree. The respondents' application for more time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to applicant; outstanding decretal sum and interest awarded to applicant

Orders

  • Respondents to pay the applicant Kshs 6,111,294.55 with interest at court rates as per the decree dated November 4, 2019.
  • Application dated April 20, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the applicant assessed at Kshs 30,000.