[2015] KEHC 4842 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicant had established that the Respondents are domiciled in Uganda and possess attachable property there. Given the existence of reciprocal enforcement provisions between Kenya and Uganda, and the inability to execute the decree effectively in Kenya, it is just and proper to transfer the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4842 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Simon Ano Mua; Respondent: Kioga Mukwano t/a Kioga Mukwano Transporters; Respondent: Abubakar Islam; Respondent: Kyoga Hauliers (U) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Decree for Execution in Foreign Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- JK Sergon
- Legal Topics
- Foreign Judgment Enforcement, Transfer of Decree, Reciprocal Enforcement, Execution of Judgments
- 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
Simon Ano Mua
Applicant
Kioga Mukwano t/a Kioga Mukwano Transporters
Respondent
Abubakar Islam
Respondent
Kyoga Hauliers (U) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Transfer of Decree for Execution in Foreign Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decree issued by the High Court of Kenya can be transferred for execution by the High Court of Uganda.
- 2 Whether the requirements for reciprocal enforcement of judgments between Kenya and Uganda are satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant had established that the Respondents are domiciled in Uganda and possess attachable property there. Given the existence of reciprocal enforcement provisions between Kenya and Uganda, and the inability to execute the decree effectively in Kenya, it is just and proper to transfer the decree for execution in Uganda. The court held that the statutory framework under both Kenyan and Ugandan law permits such transfer and enforcement, and that the interests of justice require granting the application. The application was therefore merited and allowed.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The decree issued by this court on 11th December, 2013 in favour of the Applicant is to be transferred to the High Court of Uganda at Kampala for execution.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 2015
ARISING FROM HCCS NO. 287 OF 2007
SIMON ANO MUA..........................................................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. KIOGA MUKWANO t/a KIOGA MUKWANO TRANSPORTERS
2. ABUBAKAR ISLAM
3. KYOGA HAULIERS (U) LIMITED.......................................RESPONDENTS
RULING
The subject matter of this ruling is the motion dated 19th January, 2015, taken out by Simon Ano Mua, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant. In this motion, the Applicant sought for the following orders:-
That this court be pleased to grant orders for transfer of the decree issued by this court on 11th December, 2013 in favour of the Applicant for execution by the High Court of Uganda at Kampala.
The Applicant sued the Respondents in Nairobi HCCC No. 287 of 2007. On 30th August, 2013, this court Justice H.P.G. Waweru entered judgment in favour of the Applicant against the Respondents. A decree dated 11th December, 2013 and a certificate of costs dated 13th November, 2014 were thereafter extracted. It is the Applicant's contention in his supporting affidavit sworn on 19th January, 2015 that since the extraction of the decree and certificate of costs, the Respondent's have not satisfied the judgment. He averred that he has however established that the Respondents are residents of Uganda where all their properties are and where they carry their business. It was particularly indicated that the 3rd Respondent is an incorporated company with properties in Uganda which property can be attached in execution of the decree herein.
Evidence has been availed to prove that the Respondents are domiciled and have property in Uganda.
A decree passed by the High Court in Uganda could be registered in Kenya under Section 2 (1)(a) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act Chapter 43, Laws of Kenya (the Act). Section 5 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, Cap 47 Laws of Uganda on power to apply their Act to commonwealth countries outside the United Kingdom provides that where a minister is satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made by the legislature of any commonwealth country outside the United Kingdom for enforcement within that country of judgment obtained in the High Court, the minister may by statutory order declare that this that Act extend to judgment obtained in a superior court in that country. Our courts have over the years enforced judgments from common wealth countries in line with Section 2 (1)(a) and Section 18 of the Act including judgments for Uganda. The Republic of Uganda is thereby expected to reciprocate such enforcement to Kenyan judgments. The Applicant having established that the Respondents are domiciled in Uganda, I find that it is just that the decree be registered and executed in Uganda. After considering all the circumstances of this case, I find that the Applicant's application is merited and I make orders as follows:-
That the decree issued by this court on 11th December, 2013 in favour of the Applicant be transferred to the High Court of Uganda at Kampala for execution.
Costs shall be in the cause. Orders accordingly
Dated, Signed and Delivered in open court this 8th day of May, 2015.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
........................................... for the Appellant
........................................... for the Respondents