[2010] KEHC 1145 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs and defendant were in a partnership relationship and, due to the irretrievable breakdown of their relationship, the partnership should be dissolved and accounts taken. The court held that, since the parties failed to address the issue of appointing a receiver as previously...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 1145 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stanley Mathu Ngene; Plaintiff: William Muchai Ngene; Plaintiff: Hannah Nyaikunu Ngene; Defendant: Solomon Kiriga Ngene
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 3962 of 1985
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Post Judgment Directions on Appointment of Receiver and Settlement of Partnership Properties
- Outcome
- Directions issued for settlement or appointment of receiver to divide partnership properties; matter set for mention.
- Judges
- A Mbogholi-Msagha
- Legal Topics
- Partnership Dissolution, Accounting of Partnership, Appointment of Receiver
- 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
Stanley Mathu Ngene
Plaintiff
William Muchai Ngene
Plaintiff
Hannah Nyaikunu Ngene
Plaintiff
Solomon Kiriga Ngene
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Post Judgment Directions on Appointment of Receiver and Settlement of Partnership Properties
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the partnership between the plaintiffs and defendant should be dissolved and accounts taken.
- 2 Whether a receiver should be appointed to manage and divide the partnership properties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs and defendant were in a partnership relationship and, due to the irretrievable breakdown of their relationship, the partnership should be dissolved and accounts taken. The court held that, since the parties failed to address the issue of appointing a receiver as previously directed, it was necessary to order the parties to attempt settlement within 30 days. If they failed to settle, they were to jointly appoint a receiver, and if unable to agree, the court would appoint one. The receiver would be responsible for identifying, securing, and dividing the partnership properties. The court's decision was guided by the need to ensure a fair and orderly...
Court Disposition
Directions issued for settlement or appointment of receiver to divide partnership properties; matter set for mention.
Orders
- Parties to enter into a settlement in respect of the partnership properties within 30 days.
- If settlement fails, parties to jointly appoint a receiver.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
Civil Case 3962 of 1985
STANLEY MATHU NGENE………………….…..1ST PLAINTIFFF
WILLIAM MUCHAI NGENE.…………………….2ND PLAINTITFF
HANNAH NYAIKUNU NGENE…………..………..3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SOLOMON KIRIGA NGENE……………………….. DEFENDANT
RULING
This case was heard by Bosire J. (as he then was) and delivered a judgment on2nd July, 1996. The dispute herein pits two brothers and their mother as plaintiffs and one of their brothers as the defendant. The learned judge after hearing the case said as follows in the end; “the evidence clearly shows that the plaintiffs and the defendant had several joint ventures. The defendant’s testimony in a way corroborates that……….Considering all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have shown that there is a partnership relationship between them and the defendant, and that they are entitled to an account. Also, that because the relationship between them is not good, the only logical thing to be done is for the partnership to be dissolved. I so declare and give judgment to the plaintiffs in terms as above. As for the appointment of a receiver, I need to be addressed further on the issue before making orders in that regard. Costs to the plaintiffs.”
To date, the parties have not taken any steps to address the court further on the issue of the appointment of the receiver. That is the only issue that remained in the judgment of the learned judge. The final judgment in my view, was dependant on the appointment or otherwise of the receiver.
I have looked at the submissions of both counsel in respect of the pending issues. With respect, the court cannot give a final order in that regard without reviewing the order of Bosire J. (as he then was). I must therefore endorse the said judgment by stating that the parties having failed to address the issue raised by the learned judge the court now directs that the parties shall enter into a settlement in respect of the partnership properties within 30 days of today, failure of which they shall jointly appoint a receiver and in the event that they are unable to agree on the appointment of the receiver, the court shall do so.
The said receiver shall identify and secure the partnership properties, take accounts thereof and lead to the division of the said properties. This matter shall be called out for mention on29th November, 2010. The costs shall be in the cause.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered atNairobithis 21st day of October, 2010.
A.MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE