[2015] KEHC 3207 (KLR)
The court found that it would be unjust and extortionate to hold the petitioner liable for further interest accruing after the period for which the court had already determined liability, particularly where the delay in releasing the funds was not attributable to the petitioner. The court emphasized that fairness...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 3207 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Orthodox Towers Management Co. Ltd; Respondent: The Attorney General; Interested Party: Miliki Savings & Credit Society Ltd; Interested Party: Orthodox Archbishopric Irinoupolis
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 43 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Further Interest
- Outcome
- Petitioner's application allowed; prayers 3, 4 and 5 granted with costs to the petitioner.
- Judges
- EM Ngugi
- Legal Topics
- Interest on Judgment Debt, Execution of Court Orders, Fairness in 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
Orthodox Towers Management Co. Ltd
Petitioner
The Attorney General
Respondent
Miliki Savings & Credit Society Ltd
Interested Party
Orthodox Archbishopric Irinoupolis
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application for Further Interest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner is liable to pay further interest for the period after the court-determined liability period, specifically from 6th June 2015 to 3rd July 2015.
- 2 Whether it is fair and just to impose additional interest on the petitioner for delays outside its control.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it would be unjust and extortionate to hold the petitioner liable for further interest accruing after the period for which the court had already determined liability, particularly where the delay in releasing the funds was not attributable to the petitioner. The court emphasized that fairness and justice require that a party should not be penalized for circumstances beyond its control, and thus allowed the petitioner's application to exclude liability for the additional interest claimed by the respondent.
Court Disposition
Petitioner's application allowed; prayers 3, 4 and 5 granted with costs to the petitioner.
Orders
- Prayers 3, 4 and 5 of the petitioner's application dated 21st July 2015 are allowed.
- The petitioner is not liable for further interest claimed for the period after 3rd June 2015.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
PETITION NO 43 OF 2015
ORTHODOX TOWERS MANAGEMENT CO. LTD.......................PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL........................................................RESPONDENT
MILIKI SAVINGS & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD............1ST INTERESTED PARTY
ORTHODOX ARCHBISHOPRIC IRINOUPOLIS....2ND INTERESTED PARTY
RULING NO. 3
1. In the consent between the parties entered into on 12th June 2015, it was agreed that the interest accrued between 10th February 2015 and 3rd June 2015 payable to the 1st interested party was Kshs10,813,547. This was the amount calculated by the respondent in its letter dated 5th June 2015. This interest covered the period that the Court found that the petitioner was liable for.
2. The respondent now demands a further amount of Kshs2,156,618, apparently for the period between 6th June 2015 and 3rd July 2015 when the amount was credited to the 1st interested party’s account.
3. The 1st interested party, according to the record, applied for release of the money held in Court on 8th June 2015. What transpired between then and the date the money was released is not clear. It was, however, outside the control of the petitioner.
4. One must ask the question: Suppose the 1st interested party did not apply for the release of the money until, say, a month later, and it was released two months later. Would the petitioner still be held liable for the interest?
5. In my view, such a scenario would be extortionate and unfair, and depicts the respondent and 1st interested party as displaying the character of a Shylock. It is not just, and the court must state so.
6. Consequently, I am satisfied that the petitioner’s application dated 21st July 2015 has merit, and I allow prayers 3, 4 and 5 thereof with costs to the petitioner.
Dated, Delivered and Signed at Nairobi this 23rd day of July 2015
MUMBI NGUGI
JUDGE