[2009] KEHC 4223 (KLR)
The court found that the consent order was entered into freely by all parties after full discussion, and there was no credible evidence of misrepresentation or frustration that would justify setting aside the consent. The applicant's claim of frustration was not supported by the facts, as the inability to sell the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 4223 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M.K. & Sons Ltd.; Plaintiff: Hyundai Motors (K) Ltd.; Defendant: Paul Muiruri Chang’are; Defendant: Kenya Coach Industries
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 315 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Consent Order
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Consent Orders, Setting Aside Judgments, Misrepresentation, Contract Frustration
- 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
M.K. & Sons Ltd.
Plaintiff
Hyundai Motors (K) Ltd.
Plaintiff
Paul Muiruri Chang’are
Defendant
Kenya Coach Industries
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Consent Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the consent order dated 22/9/2005 should be set aside or varied.
- 2 Whether there was misrepresentation or frustration sufficient to invalidate the consent order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the consent order was entered into freely by all parties after full discussion, and there was no credible evidence of misrepresentation or frustration that would justify setting aside the consent. The applicant's claim of frustration was not supported by the facts, as the inability to sell the chassis at the desired price did not amount to frustration of the contract. The court emphasized that consent orders are binding and can only be set aside on grounds that would invalidate a contract, none of which were present in this case. Accordingly, the application to set aside or vary the consent order was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to set aside or vary the consent order dated 22/9/2005 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 315 of 2005
M.K. & SONS LTD. …………………………………...... 1ST PLAINTIFF
HYUNDAI MOTORS (K) LTD. ……………………….. 2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PAUL MUIRURI CHANG’ARE …………………… 1ST DEFENDANT
KENYA COACH INDUSTRIES …………………… 2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
Notice of motion dated 16/6/2008 seeks orders to vary and/or set aside the consent order dated 22/9/2005 together with costs of the application. The grounds upon which the application was filed are stated on the application. It is stated that on 22/9/2005 the parties recorded a consent to the effect that the subject matter of this suit being chassis No. KMFGA 17CR209092 be disposed of either by public auction or private treaty and the proceeds be deposited in a joint account in the names of advocates for the parties.
That the said consent was entered with the knowledge that the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant who were motor vehicles manufacturers had a ready market for the chassis and the same would be sold within a few months. This was a misrepresentation by plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant to first defendant. This has frustrated the contract and it has become unenforceable.
The second defendant submits that he has received several offers which have been rejected by 1st defendant and it is clear the first applicant is the one who is putting obstruction to the performance of the consent agreement. It is clear the consent was reached after full discussions as shown on the record.
The affidavit in reply and sworn by Narain Singh Sokhi appears credible. It is shown that there was an offer for the purchase at Kshs.1,750,000/= but the first defendant rejected that offer claiming they could sell the chassis for Kshs.2. 5 million but to-date has not been able to do so.
It is trite law that court has no jurisdiction to set aside or vary a consent freely entered into by the parties and recorded in court. Civil Procedure Order 24 Rule 6 provides where a suit has been settled by any lawful agreement the court shall on the application on any party order such agreement be recorded and shall enter judgment in accordance therewith. In this case, the parties appeared before the court wherein the Judge entered their consent.
And generally, consent judgment is not interfered with unless it is proved that there are grounds that would cause the court to set aside a contract. There is no such ground and the ground of frustration put forward by the applicant is not tenable.
The application is dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED this 8th day of June 2009.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE