[2010] KEHC 146 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 146 (KLR)

The court found that the obligation to pay the decretal sum of Kshs 939,569 arose directly from its judgment, not from the 2nd Defendant's initiative. The 2nd Defendant made genuine efforts to comply with the court order by attempting to pay the Plaintiff, but these efforts were thwarted by the Plaintiff's refusal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 146 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rose Waguthii Mwangi Njunu (suing as the administratrix of the estate of the late Julius W Mwanig Njungu); Defendant: Edward Githinji; Defendant: Housing Finance Co. of Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Abdillahi Warsame Ali t/a Nadhia Auctioneers
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 504 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Deposit Decretal Sum Into Court
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
CM Njagi
Legal Topics
Execution of Judgments, Payment of Decretal Sum, Compliance With Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Execution of Judgments Payment of Decretal Sum Compliance With Court Orders

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rose Waguthii Mwangi Njunu (suing as the administratrix of the estate of the late Julius W Mwanig Njungu)

Plaintiff

Edward Githinji

Defendant

Housing Finance Co. of Kenya Ltd

Defendant

Abdillahi Warsame Ali t/a Nadhia Auctioneers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Deposit Decretal Sum Into Court

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant should be allowed to deposit the decretal amount into court as final satisfaction of the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's refusal to accept payment justifies the deposit of the decretal sum into court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the obligation to pay the decretal sum of Kshs 939,569 arose directly from its judgment, not from the 2nd Defendant's initiative. The 2nd Defendant made genuine efforts to comply with the court order by attempting to pay the Plaintiff, but these efforts were thwarted by the Plaintiff's refusal to accept payment. The court held that, in the face of such refusal, it is just and equitable to allow the 2nd Defendant to deposit the decretal amount into court as final satisfaction of the judgment. This ensures compliance with the court's order and prevents further frustration of the enforcement process. The court further ordered that the Respondent bear the costs of the...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The 2nd Defendant is granted leave to deposit the decretal amount of Kshs 939,569.00 into court in compliance with the judgment delivered on 14th October, 2009.
  • The Respondent will bear the costs of this application.