[2025] KEHC 6196 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 6196 (KLR)

The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain a fresh suit challenging a prior judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction where fraud is alleged and substantiated. The doctrine of res judicata does not preclude such a suit because fraud constitutes an independent cause of action and undermines the integrity of the judicial process. The court found that the defendant and his witness knowingly or recklessly misrepresented to the court in HCCC No. 51 of 2005 that the plaintiff had received full compensation from the Government of Tanzania, when in fact no such payment had been made. This misrepresentation was material, deliberate, and directly influenced the outcome of the...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 6196 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hermanus Phillipus Steyn; Defendant: Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Suit 291 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's suit allowed; impugned judgment set aside; retrial ordered; permanent injunction granted; costs to plaintiff.
Judges
FG Mugambi
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Judgment, Commission Agreements, Res Judicata, Perjury, Arbitral Awards, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Fraudulent Judgment Commission Agreements Res Judicata Perjury Arbitral Awards Injunctive Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hermanus Phillipus Steyn

Plaintiff

Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction on grounds of fraud.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of res judicata precludes a fresh suit challenging a prior judgment alleged to have been procured by fraud.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment in HCCC No. 51 of 2005 was obtained through fraud and perjured evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain a fresh suit challenging a prior judgment of a court of coordinate jurisdiction where fraud is alleged and substantiated. The doctrine of res judicata does not preclude such a suit because fraud constitutes an independent cause of action and undermines the integrity of the judicial process. The court found that the defendant and his witness knowingly or recklessly misrepresented to the court in HCCC No. 51 of 2005 that the plaintiff had received full compensation from the Government of Tanzania, when in fact no such payment had been made. This misrepresentation was material, deliberate, and directly influenced the outcome of the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's suit allowed; impugned judgment set aside; retrial ordered; permanent injunction granted; costs to plaintiff.

Orders

  • A declaration that the defendant committed perjury and gave false and fraudulent evidence in Milimani HCCC No. 51 of 2005.
  • A declaration that the judgment and decree issued on September 7, 2007 in the said suit were obtained by fraud and are null and void ab initio.