[2024] KEHC 14798 (KLR)
The court held that the interest of 12% per annum on the judgment sum of Kshs. 196 million is to be calculated as simple interest, not compound, and is applicable on the amounts as prorated each year, not cumulatively. Each separate amount specified in the judgment attracts interest of 12% per year for the period...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 14798 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Shivali Investments Limited; Plaintiff: Naval Holdings Limited; Plaintiff: Ketty Investments Limited; Plaintiff: Saaf Holdings Limited; Defendant: Maganlal Motichand Chandaria; Defendant: Nisha Dinesh Chandaria; Defendant: Mahesh Maganlal Chandaria; Defendant: Conifers Trading Limited; Defendant: Chandaria Holding Limited; Defendant: Dima Limited; Defendant: Goldera Limited; Defendant: Kevis Investments Limited; Defendant: Guardian Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 560 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Clarification of Judgment
- Outcome
- Clarification granted on computation of interest and return of securities; no variation of substantive orders.
- Judges
- A Mabeya
- Legal Topics
- Judgment Interest, Enforcement of Judgments, Interpretation of Orders, Return of Security
- 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
Shivali Investments Limited
Plaintiff
Naval Holdings Limited
Plaintiff
Ketty Investments Limited
Plaintiff
Saaf Holdings Limited
Plaintiff
Maganlal Motichand Chandaria
Defendant
Nisha Dinesh Chandaria
Defendant
Mahesh Maganlal Chandaria
Defendant
Conifers Trading Limited
Defendant
Chandaria Holding Limited
Defendant
Dima Limited
Defendant
Goldera Limited
Defendant
Kevis Investments Limited
Defendant
Guardian Bank Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Clarification of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interest on the judgment sum of Kshs. 196 million should be calculated as simple or compound interest.
- 2 Clarification on the dates and manner in which interest accrues on the judgment sum.
- 3 Clarification on the securities to be returned as per the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the interest of 12% per annum on the judgment sum of Kshs. 196 million is to be calculated as simple interest, not compound, and is applicable on the amounts as prorated each year, not cumulatively. Each separate amount specified in the judgment attracts interest of 12% per year for the period specified, and only the total sum as at 1/1/2011 attracts interest from that date to the date of judgment. The court further clarified that the order for return of securities is as per paragraph (e) of the plaint and the Memorandum of Understanding, and the parties are aware of the specific securities involved.
Court Disposition
Clarification granted on computation of interest and return of securities; no variation of substantive orders.
Orders
- Interest of 12% per annum is to be calculated as simple interest on the judgment sum as prorated each year, not cumulatively.
- Each separate amount specified in the judgment attracts interest of 12% per year for the period specified.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
Shivali Investments Limited & 3 others v Chandaria & 8 others (Civil Suit 560 of 2005) [2024] KEHC 14798 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (27 November 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 14798 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Commercial and Tax
Civil Suit 560 of 2005
A Mabeya, J
November 27, 2024
Between
Shivali Investments Limited
1st Plaintiff
Naval Holdings Limited
2nd Plaintiff
Ketty Investments Limited
3rd Plaintiff
Saaf Holdings Limited
4th Plaintiff
and
Maganlal Motichand Chandaria
1st Defendant
Nisha Dinesh Chandaria w/o Dinesh Maganlal Chandaria (Being sued as the Personal representative of the Estate of the Late Dinesh Maganlal Chandaria
2nd Defendant
Mahesh Maganlal Chandaria
3rd Defendant
Conifers Trading Limited
4th Defendant
Chandaria Holding Limited
5th Defendant
Dima Limited
6th Defendant
Goldera Limited
7th Defendant
Kevis Investments Limited
8th Defendant
Guardian Bank Limited
9th Defendant
Ruling
1. On 7/11/2024, this Court gave directions that it cannot hear the references because of the stay orders of the Court of Appeal. That however, it could give clarification on any part of its judgment even though its execution had been stayed.
2. On 12/11/2024, the parties appeared and made submissions on the parts of the judgment that clarification was required. These are; the interest payable on the judgment sum of Kshs. 196 million and the securities that were ordered to be returned.
3. On the interest payable on the judgment sum of Kshs. 196M, paragraph 55(a) of the judgment is clear. The Court specified at length how the judgment amount was payable. It split the amount and specified the dates from when the interest was payable. It should be noted that when interest is ordered by the Court the same is always simple interest and not compound.
4. The judgment sum was not payable at once. It was payable on various dates. The sums specified on paragraph 55(a) (i) to (x) of the judgment are cumulative and not otherwise. In order not to charge interest on interest, (avoid compound), the Court specified the date from when each separate amount was to attract interest. It is after para 55 (a) (x), 1/1/2011 that the entire judgment sum was to attract interest at 12% per annum until the date of judgment. The other sums were to attract interest of 12% for the period specified, ie per one completed year separately.
5. Accordingly, I hold that the interest of 12% was applicable on the judgment sum as prorated each year and not cumulative ie the separate amounts attracted interest of 12% per year (12 months) save for the total sum in para 55 (a) (x) which attracted interest from 1/1/2011 to the date of the judgment.
6. As regards the securities in para 55(b), the order was in terms of paragraph (e) of the plaint. The parties are aware of the securities that were offered as per the Memorandum of Understanding.It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024. A. MABEYA, FCI ArbJUDGE