[2007] KEHC 3581 (KLR)
The court held that the decree must strictly conform to the judgment as required by Order XX Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Upon review, the court found that the version of the decree drawn by the Plaintiffs' counsel was defective as it omitted reference to HCCC No. 3844 of 1991 and calculated interest in a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3581 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Joshua Njuguna; Plaintiff: Bernard Njuguna t/a Miproma Services Limited; Defendant: Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited; Defendant: Home Savings and Mortgages Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3841 of 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Settlement of Decree
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' version of the decree cancelled; Defendants' version to be signed and sealed; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Settlement of Decree, Interest on Judgment Debt, Costs Award, Enforcement of Judgment
- 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
Michael Joshua Njuguna
Plaintiff
Bernard Njuguna t/a Miproma Services Limited
Plaintiff
Consolidated Bank of Kenya Limited
Defendant
Home Savings and Mortgages Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Settlement of Decree
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decree as drawn by the Plaintiffs' counsel accords with the judgment delivered by the court.
- 2 Whether the Deputy Registrar was correct in signing and sealing the Plaintiffs' version of the decree.
- 3 Which version of the decree should be adopted and enforced.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the decree must strictly conform to the judgment as required by Order XX Rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Upon review, the court found that the version of the decree drawn by the Plaintiffs' counsel was defective as it omitted reference to HCCC No. 3844 of 1991 and calculated interest in a manner inconsistent with the judgment, specifically by allowing interest on interest. In contrast, the Defendants' version of the decree accurately reflected the judgment and did not suffer from these defects. Consequently, the court ordered that the Deputy Registrar should not have signed and sealed the Plaintiffs' version and directed that the Defendants' version be signed...
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' version of the decree cancelled; Defendants' version to be signed and sealed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The version of the decree drawn by counsel for the Plaintiffs is hereby cancelled.
- The Deputy Registrar is directed to sign and seal the version of the decree drawn by counsel for the Defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 3841 of 1991
MICHAEL JOSHUA NJUGUNA
BERNARD NJUGUNA T/A MIPROMA SERVICES LIMITED……. PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
CONSOLIDATED BANK OF KENYA LIMITED..........................1ST DEFENDANT
HOME SAVINGS AND MORTGAGES LTD……....................….2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
This matter is for settlement of decree. Judgment was on 10th May, 2007 entered for the Plaintiffs against the Defendants in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the prayers in each of the plaints in HCCC Nos. 3838, 3839, 3840, 3841, 3842 and 3843 of 1991. In prayer (a), the Plaintiffs sought the principal sums and in prayer (b) they sought interest on the principal sums at the rate of 13% per annum from 14th December, 1989 until payment in full. The Plaintiffs were also awarded costs as against the Defendants.
The Plaintiff in 3844 of 1991 did not attend at the hearing. So his case remained unproven and I said as much in my judgment.
Under Rule 6(1) of Order XX of the Civil Procedure Rules a decree must agree with the judgment. I have perused the versions of the decree drawn by both counsels. Save for minor disagreements, the versions agree with my judgment. The version drawn by counsel for the Plaintiffs does not mention HCCC No. 3844 of 1991 in the order given and has interest calculated upto the date of judgment and is drawn as if interest will be charged on interest contrary to the judgment given.
The version drawn by counsel for the Defendants does not suffer from these defects.
The Deputy Registrar should therefore not have signed and sealed the version drawn by counsel for the Plaintiffs in view of the deficiencies stated above. The same is hereby councelled. In its place the Deputy Registrar is directed to sign and seal the version drawn by counsel for the Defendants.
There will be no order as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18TH day of July, 2007.
Read in the presence of Ms. Githui for the Plaintiffs and Ms. Kirimi for the Defendants.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
18. 7.2007