[2011] KEHC 3405 (KLR)
The court found that the Deputy Registrar had erroneously computed the interest on the refund due to the defendant using compound interest instead of the simple interest at 20% per annum as ordered by the court. The court clarified that the judgment intended simple interest, and the application to vary the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3405 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samwel Kerich; Respondent: James Maritim Mutai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 73 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Application to Vary Deputy Registrar's Computation of Interest
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Deputy Registrar's computation set aside. Matter referred back for correct computation.
- Legal Topics
- Interest Computation, Refund of Consideration, Enforcement of Judgment
- 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
Samwel Kerich
Applicant
James Maritim Mutai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Application to Vary Deputy Registrar's Computation of Interest
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Deputy Registrar erred by applying compound interest instead of simple interest at 20% per annum as ordered by the court.
- 2 Whether the computation of Kshs. 2,611,066 as refund was excessive and punitive.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Deputy Registrar had erroneously computed the interest on the refund due to the defendant using compound interest instead of the simple interest at 20% per annum as ordered by the court. The court clarified that the judgment intended simple interest, and the application to vary the computation was meritorious. The court set aside the Deputy Registrar's ruling and ordered a fresh computation by a different Taxing Master, strictly on the basis of simple interest at 20% per annum.
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Deputy Registrar's computation set aside. Matter referred back for correct computation.
Orders
- The Ruling and decision of the Deputy Registrar dated 20/9/2007 is set aside.
- Computation to be made by a different Taxing Master on the basis of simple interest at 20% per annum as ordered by the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLICOF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT KERICHO
CIVIL SUIT NO. 73 OF 2001
SAMWEL KERICH …………………………………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JAMES MARITIM MUTAI………………………………….DEFENDANT
RULING
Samwel Kerich, the Applicant, was the Plaintiff in the suit herein. On 16th June, 2006, the Hon. Mr. Justice D. Musinga determined the suit between the Applicant as Plaintiff and James Maritim Mutai, the Respondent as defendant. The Judge stated:
“I find that the Plaintiff has on a balance of probabilities proved his case and with a heavy heart I have to order the Defendant to vacate the suit premises forthwith. The Plaintiff will however refund to the Defendant a sum of Kshs. 165,000/= which he paid as consideration for the suit premises. He will also pay interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum with effect from the date of payment of the said sum until payment in full. The Defendant had prayed for refund of the money together with interest at commercial rates and although commercial rates of interest have varied over the years that is from 1992 to date, I believe 20% per annum is a reasonable average. As was held in KARIUKI V. KARIUKI [1983] KLR 225 no compensation is payable for any improvements which may have been done in respect of a transaction which becomes null and void.”
The Deputy Registrar computed the refund of Kshs. 165,000 due to the Plaintiff and came up with a figure of Kshs. 2,611,066. This prompted the applicant to come to Court to seek variation of the decision of the Deputy Registrar by reducing the interest applied on the ground that it was excessive, unreasonable and punitive.
Mr. J. K. Rono, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff applicant told the Court that compound interest had been applied instead of simple interest. He contended that the correct amount was Kshs. 407,500 and not Kshs. 2,611,066.
On his part, Mr. J. K. Kirui, the learned Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent maintained that the Deputy Registrar’s computation was right.
I have looked at the judgment of the Court. The interest granted was 20% p.a. This is simple interest. It is not compound interest. The computation seems to have been erroneously done on the basis of compound interest. I so find. The application has merit. I allow it.
I hereby set aside the Ruling of the Deputy Registrar and the latter’s decision dated 20/9/2007. I order that the computation be made by a different Taxing Master on the basis of simple interest at the rate of 20% p.a. as ordered by the Court. The matter is referred back to the Taxing Master. Parties shall appear before the Deputy Registrar on 8th March 2011.
I make no order as to costs.
DATEDat KERICHO this 7th day of March 2011
G.B.M KARIUKI, SC
RESIDENT JUDGE
COUNSEL APPEARING
Mr. J.K. Rono, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr. J.K. Kirui, Advocate, for the Defendant
Mr. N. Bett, Court clerk