[2025] KECPT 277 (KLR)

[2025] KECPT 277 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the sum of Kshs. 72,600 had indeed been paid by the Respondent prior to the filing of the suit, as evidenced by the Claimant's own correspondence and the lack of dispute regarding the payment. The Tribunal determined that the amount was deducted from the sum claimed before the suit was filed, and that the Claimant's position to the contrary was not supported by the documentary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the decretal sum should be reduced by Kshs. 72,600 to reflect the true amount owed. The application for review was therefore allowed to the extent of varying the judgment by reducing the decretal sum accordingly, and costs of the application were...

Citation
[2025] KECPT 277 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Peter Gitau Ngugi; Respondent: Dimitrious Ndungu Njoroge
Court
Cooperative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case 104/E048 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; decretal sum reduced by Kshs. 72,600; costs awarded to Respondent.
Judges
BM Kimemia, Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, F Lotuiya, P. Gichuki, M Chesikaw
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Decretal Sum Adjustment, Loan Guarantee Liability, Payment Deduction Dispute
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Review of Judgment Decretal Sum Adjustment Loan Guarantee Liability Payment Deduction Dispute

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Peter Gitau Ngugi

Applicant

Dimitrious Ndungu Njoroge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Variation of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decretal amount awarded in the default judgment should be reduced by Kshs. 72,600 due to prior payment by the Respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the application amounts to an impermissible review or setting aside of the judgment already delivered.
  3. 3 Whether the sum of Kshs. 72,600 was already factored into the claim at the time of filing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the sum of Kshs. 72,600 had indeed been paid by the Respondent prior to the filing of the suit, as evidenced by the Claimant's own correspondence and the lack of dispute regarding the payment. The Tribunal determined that the amount was deducted from the sum claimed before the suit was filed, and that the Claimant's position to the contrary was not supported by the documentary evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the decretal sum should be reduced by Kshs. 72,600 to reflect the true amount owed. The application for review was therefore allowed to the extent of varying the judgment by reducing the decretal sum accordingly, and costs of the application were...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; decretal sum reduced by Kshs. 72,600; costs awarded to Respondent.

Orders

  • Prayer 3 of the Respondent's Notice of Motion Application dated 29th February, 2024 is allowed, reducing the decretal sum by Kshs. 72,600.
  • The costs of this Application are awarded to the Respondent/Applicant.