[2018] KEHC 1010 (KLR)
The Court found that documentary evidence, including letters from the Plaintiffs requesting the transfer of funds from the fixed deposit account and corresponding bank statements, proved that the fixed deposit had already been paid out to the Plaintiffs. The Court held that paying the deposit again would unjustly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 1010 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rongai General Commodities Ltd; Plaintiff: Simon Maina Gachie; Plaintiff: Monica Wangui Nganga; Defendant: Equatorial Commercial Bank Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 263 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review and Interest on Fixed Deposit
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' application for payment of interest on deposit dismissed; previous order for refund of fixed deposit set aside; each party to bear own costs.
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Bank Deposit Disputes, Review of Judgment, Interest on Funds
- 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
Rongai General Commodities Ltd
Plaintiff
Simon Maina Gachie
Plaintiff
Monica Wangui Nganga
Plaintiff
Equatorial Commercial Bank Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review and Interest on Fixed Deposit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the fixed deposit amount previously ordered to be refunded to the Plaintiffs had already been paid out by the Defendant.
- 2 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the fixed deposit account at the commercial/statutory rate.
- 3 Whether there is sufficient reason to review and set aside the previous order for refund of the fixed deposit.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that documentary evidence, including letters from the Plaintiffs requesting the transfer of funds from the fixed deposit account and corresponding bank statements, proved that the fixed deposit had already been paid out to the Plaintiffs. The Court held that paying the deposit again would unjustly enrich the Plaintiffs. Consequently, there was sufficient reason to review and set aside the previous order for refund of the fixed deposit. The application for payment of interest on the deposit was also dismissed, as the principal sum had already been settled. The Court further noted that the Defendant had complied with the order to return the title deed, and there was no basis...
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' application for payment of interest on deposit dismissed; previous order for refund of fixed deposit set aside; each party to bear own costs.
Orders
- Order 2 in the Judgment delivered on 18th April 2018 is set aside.
- Prayer 5 and 7 of Plaintiff’s application dated 16th July 2018 are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI (NAIROBI)
COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO.263 OF 2009
RONGAI GENERAL COMMODITIES LTD............1ST PLAINTIFF
SIMON MAINA GACHIE...........................................2ND PLAINTIFF
MONICA WANGUI NGANGA...................................3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EQUATORIAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD..............DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Plaintiffs filed application dated 16th July 2018. Prayers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 were spent at the time of arguing the application. What remained were prayer 5 and 7. the Plaintiff sought interest on funds in fixed deposit account at commercial rate, which is now statutory 9% p.a.
In response the Respondent filed Replying Affidavit application dated 24th October 2018 which sought to review judgment delivered on 4th April 2018.
Counsel for the Defendant argued that upon perusal of bank documents they found that Kshs. 3. 2M that the Court ordered to be refunded to the Plaintiff had been utilized at the request of the Plaintiff. The Respondent attached a letter dated 22nd March 2006 addressed to the bank by the Plaintiff instructing transfer of money in fixed deposit account to its current account. Documents showing being fixed in April 2005 and debit on 7th April 2006. Respondent state that the 3. 5 million was paid in 2 trenches of 2,444,467 and 1,550,757. Counsel submitted that it is in that account that the Respondent has not availed the amount as doing so will amount to unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. She urged Court to review its own decree specifically on refund of deposit.
Counsel for the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant returned the title deed to the Plaintiff as per the Courts order. She prayed for the Plaintiffs application to be disallowed.
Counsel for the Plaintiff opposed the Defendants application and relied on Replying Affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff on 5th October 2018. She averred that the fixed deposit refund they asked for was a specific 2. 3M and 1M separately.
Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that all the documents were before Court and there is nothing to review. He argued that documents JW3, JW4 and JW5 had been produced and evidence is now being given in another way to justify this application. He added that in evidence the Defendant said they declined to release the deposit, as it was part of security; further the witness said he did not know how much interest was paid on fixed deposit.
Counsel argued that this is an attempt by the current Legal Officer to frustrate payment of the deposit. He said that the documents they are relying on are for Spire Bank yet there was no Spire Bank in 2004. He said that judgment has been given and we cannot now rely on Affidavit evidence.
Counsel submitted that there is no prayer to reopen suit and that on a balance of probabilities; the Court finding is the right one.
I have considered rival arguments herein. I have also perused documents attached to Affidavits filed. The letter dated 22nd March 2006, which is marked JW3 requests, the bank to offset the fixed deposit account inclusive of interest against the loan and the balance credited to their current account. In the letter, the Plaintiff applied for afresh overdraft of 3 Million and a letter of credit revolving facility of 3 Million.
Similar request is made in the letter dated 28th March 2006. Bank statement confirm that money was paid out from fixed deposit account on 7th April 2006. the payment was done after the requests. Plaintiff say the statement is on letter head of spire bank which was not in existence at the time: however there is no doubt that from pleading the bank changed names from southern credit bank to spire bank and if printing of statement was done after the change it had to be done in the name the bank was using at the time of printing. The two letters requesting for funds are on Plaintiffs letter head and signed.
From the foregoing there is prove that the deposit was paid out. Paying it out again would be enriching the Plaintiff unjustly.
From the foregoing I find that there is sufficient reason to review my order for refund of fixed deposit. My finding is that there is sufficient proof that the fixed deposit was paid out as per JW5. I therefore set aside the order for payment of deposit. It follows therefore that the application for payment of interest on deposit is dismissed.
FINAL ORDER
1. Order 2 in the Judgment delivered on 18th day of April 2018 is set aside.
2. Prayer 5 and 7 of Plaintiff’s application dated 16th July, 2018 are dismissed.
3. Each party to bear own costs in respect of the two applications.
Ruling Delivered, DatedandSignedatNairobithis13thday ofDecember, 2018
………………………………
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE
IN THE PRESENCE OF
Naomi: COURT ASSISTANT
Kingara: COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
Ms Karani: COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT