[2018] KEHC 10172 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 10172 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order recorded on 17th April 2018 contained an obvious error by stating that the respondent was to make payments, when in fact the defendant was the party liable under the original consent judgment. The error was apparent on the face of the record, as the background of the suit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 10172 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rhino Agrimac & Equipment Limited; Defendant: Egerton University Investment Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 253 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order
Outcome
application for review allowed
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment, Review of Orders, Execution of Decree, Error on Face of Record
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Consent Judgment Review of Orders Execution of Decree Error on Face of Record

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rhino Agrimac & Equipment Limited

Plaintiff

Egerton University Investment Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review of Consent Order

  1. 1 Whether the court can review a consent order to correct an error apparent on the face of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the party liable for payment under the consent order was correctly identified in the court record.
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to review or vary consent orders in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order recorded on 17th April 2018 contained an obvious error by stating that the respondent was to make payments, when in fact the defendant was the party liable under the original consent judgment. The error was apparent on the face of the record, as the background of the suit clearly established the defendant's indebtedness to the plaintiff. The court held that it has jurisdiction to review and correct such errors in consent orders under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The opposition by the defendant was found to be without merit, as it did not address the substantive issue of the error. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

application for review allowed

Orders

  • The consent order of 17th April 2018 is reviewed by substituting 'the defendant' for 'the respondent' in Orders 2 and 3 of that date.
  • The consent of 17th April 2018 now reads: (1) The warrants of attachment dated 06/03/2018 stand cancelled. (2) The Defendant has until 30/04/2018 to pay Kshs 1,946,829/=. (3) The Defendant has until 30/09/2018 to pay Kshs 11,000,000/=. (4) In default of any of the 2 payments, execution to issue.