[2006] KEHC 682 (KLR)
The court found that since the defendant had paid the principal sum claimed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had succeeded in its suit. There was no good reason to deny the plaintiff interest on the principal sum from the date of filing suit to the date of payment, nor to deny the plaintiff the costs of the suit. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 682 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Thara Trading Limited; Defendant: N. K. Brothers Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 798 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Settlement (interest and Costs)
- Outcome
- Plaintiff awarded interest on the principal sum at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of payment, and costs of the suit.
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Goods Sold and Delivered, Interest Awards, Costs of Suit
- 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
Thara Trading Limited
Plaintiff
N. K. Brothers Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Settlement (interest and Costs)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal sum after out-of-court settlement of the principal amount.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit after the defendant paid the principal sum out of court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the defendant had paid the principal sum claimed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff had succeeded in its suit. There was no good reason to deny the plaintiff interest on the principal sum from the date of filing suit to the date of payment, nor to deny the plaintiff the costs of the suit. The fact that the payment was made out of court did not constitute a sufficient reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. The court exercised its discretion under sections 26(1) and 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to award the plaintiff both interest at court rates and the costs of the suit.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff awarded interest on the principal sum at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of payment, and costs of the suit.
Orders
- Defendant to pay plaintiff interest on the principal sum at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of payment of the principal.
- Plaintiff to have costs of the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Suit 798 of 2003
THARA TRADING LIMITED………………….....………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
N. K. BROTHERS LIMITED…………………………….DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
On 25th May, 2006 when the suit came up for mention with a view to recording a settlement, the parties, through their learned counsels, informed the court that the Defendant had fully paid to the Plaintiff the principal sum claimed, and that the only outstanding issues were interest on the principal sum and costs. The court was further informed that the said partial settlement was reached by the parties themselves without involving the counsels. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that in these circumstances the Plaintiff was entitled to interest on the principal and costs of the suit. Learned counsel for the Defendant left the matter to court.
Section 26 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act (the Act) donates to the court, where and in so far as the decree is for the payment of money, the discretion to order interest, at such rates as the court deems reasonable from the date of the suit to the date of the decree, in addition to any interest adjudged on such principal sum for any period before the institution of the suit, with further interest at such rate as the court deems reasonable on the aggregate sum so adjudged from the date of the decree to the date of payment or to such earlier date as the court thinks fit.
The Plaintiff’s claim was for the sum of Kshs.5,484,585/00 in respect of goods sold and delivered to the Defendant between 1996 and 2005 at the Defendant’s own request and instance. Defence was filed denying the claim. In these circumstances I see absolutely no reason why the Plaintiff should be denied interest, at least from the date of filing of suit.
Regarding costs of the suit, section 27(1) of the Act provides:-
“27. (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid; and the fact that the court or judge has no jurisdiction to try the suit shall be no bar to the exercise of those powers:
Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.”
Again here, the statute has granted to the court discretion in regard to costs as limited by the proviso.
What is the “event” here? With payment of the principal sum by the defendant to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has obviously succeeded in his suit. That is the “event”. I see no good reason why the Plaintiff should be denied its costs of the suit. The fact that payment of the principal has been made out of court is not such good reason.
The order that commends itself to me is therefore as follows. The Defendant having paid the principal sum claimed, it shall further pay to the Plaintiff interest on the principal at court rates from the date of filing suit to the date of payment of the principal. The Plaintiff shall have costs of the suit. Orders accordingly.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006.
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED THIS 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006.