[2006] KEHC 883 (KLR)
The court found no ambiguity in its earlier order that interest on the principal sum would run from the date of judgment until payment in full. The court emphasized that it had exercised its discretion under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in determining the commencement date for interest. If the plaintiff...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 883 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Majestic Works Limited; Defendant: Kilimanjaro Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 315 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Post Judgment Clarification Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for clarification declined; previous order on interest commencement date stands.
- Legal Topics
- Interest Awards, Court Discretion, Judgment Enforcement
- 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
Majestic Works Limited
Plaintiff
Kilimanjaro Company Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Post Judgment Clarification Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interest on the principal sum should run from the date of filing suit or from the date of judgment as previously ordered.
- 2 Whether the court should clarify or vary its earlier order regarding the commencement date for interest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no ambiguity in its earlier order that interest on the principal sum would run from the date of judgment until payment in full. The court emphasized that it had exercised its discretion under section 26(1) of the Civil Procedure Act in determining the commencement date for interest. If the plaintiff was dissatisfied with this exercise of discretion, the proper course was to appeal or seek review, not to seek clarification. Accordingly, the court declined to interfere with or vary its previous order regarding the date from which interest would run.
Court Disposition
Application for clarification declined; previous order on interest commencement date stands.
Orders
- The court declines to interfere with its order made on 05.04.06 regarding the date from which interest would start running.
- Interest on the principal sum shall run from the date of judgment until payment in full as previously ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Suit 315 of 1996
MAJESTIC WORKS LIMITED. ……………................................……….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KILIMANJARO COMPANY LIMITED……….............................…….. DEFENDANT
RULING
On 05. 04. 06 I delivered judgment in this case and gave judgment for the plaintiff, with costs to the plaintiff. I also awarded to the plaintiff, interest on the principal sum of Kshs.1,257,761/15 at court rate from the date of judgment until payment in full.
Subsequently counsel for the plaintiff arranged to have the case fixed for mention before me on 18. 09. 06. Mr. A. Tanui appeared for the plaintiff at the mention and told the court as follows:
‘Purpose of mention is to clarify date when interest on the principal would start running. We submit it should start from date of filing suit, not from date of judgment as ordered by court.’
Learned plaintiff’s counsel relied on Yousuf Abdulla Gulamhusein –vs- The French Somaliland and Shipping Co. Ltd [1959] E.A. 25 in seeking ‘clarification’ on the date when the principal would start running. Yousuf’s case was decided by the then Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, arising out of an appeal from the Supreme Court of Aden.
As far as the date from which the interest awarded by this court was to start running is concerned, there is no ambiguity on the matter – it is from the date of judgment until payment in full. That is clear enough and no case arises for any clarification. If the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the questioned order relating to the effective date from which interest was to start running, he should have appealed against it, or at least sought its review. Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 provides, inter alia, as follows:
’26 (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 ….’
As I see it, the court has discretion regarding the matter in question and if the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the way the court exercised its discretion in the matter, the plaintiff should have invoked appropriate formal procedure in challenging the exercise of such discretion.
The court declines to interfere with its order made on 05. 04. 06 with regard to the date from which the interest awarded would start running. It is so ordered.
Delivered at Nairobi this 29th day of September, 2006.
B.P. KUBO
JUDGE