[2012] KEHC 4930 (KLR)
The court found that the consent order for payment of taxed costs by installments did not contain a default provision and remained operative unless vacated by consent or on contractual grounds. Despite the defendant's default, the plaintiff accepted subsequent payments, thereby acknowledging the continued existence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4930 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ukingoni Farm Limited; Respondent: Ngendelel Koiyo Farm Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 71 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Eviction Orders
- Outcome
- orders of 27th June 2011 set aside; no order as to costs
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Consent Orders, Eviction Orders, Setting Aside Orders
- 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
Ukingoni Farm Limited
Applicant
Ngendelel Koiyo Farm Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Eviction Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the orders of eviction issued on 27th June 2011 should be set aside or varied.
- 2 Whether the defendant's default in payment under the consent order justified execution and eviction.
- 3 Whether the consent order remained operative despite partial compliance and subsequent payments.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the consent order for payment of taxed costs by installments did not contain a default provision and remained operative unless vacated by consent or on contractual grounds. Despite the defendant's default, the plaintiff accepted subsequent payments, thereby acknowledging the continued existence of the consent order or acquiescing to it. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the eviction orders of 27th June 2011, as the consent order was still in effect and the plaintiff's conduct indicated acceptance of the defendant's compliance, albeit delayed. The application under Order 22 rule 22 was technically misplaced, but the court addressed the substantive justice...
Court Disposition
orders of 27th June 2011 set aside; no order as to costs
Orders
- The orders of 27th June 2011 are hereby set aside as prayed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
CIVIL SUIT NO.71 OF 1994
UKINGONI FARM LIMITED……………..………………….APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NGENDELEL KOIYO FARM LTD……………………..RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
RULING
The court having entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff and also having dismissed the defendant’s counter-claim, the latter filed a notice of appeal to challenge the decision. In the meantime, the parties recorded consent in the following terms, in pertinent part;
“1. By consent the execution of the decree herein is hereby stayed pending the hearing and final determination of the intended appeal on condition that the taxed costs of Kshs.260,000/= is paid to respondent’s advocate in monthly installments of Kshs.50,000/= with effect from 30th June 2010. ”
On the 27th June 2011 the plaintiff brought an application for orders that the court directs the District Commissioner, Subukia to provide security to Airways Auctioneers and other forms of assistance in effecting execution of the decree. The application was brought on the ground that the defendant had failed to comply with the above consent order while at the same time the defendants have prevented, through their hostility, the execution of the decree by the auctioneers.
The court in granting the application of 27th June 2011 ordered that the defendants vacate the suit property within sixty (60) days failing which they would be evicted. The District Commissioner was ordered, in case eviction became necessary to provide security. The defendants have now brought the instant motion dated 24th August, 2011 seeking stay of
“………..execution of the judgment pending the hearing and determination of this application”.
The application also seeks that the orders issued on 27th June 2011 be set aside and/or varied on the following grounds:
i)the original file was misplaced after the judgment was entered;
ii)a consent was recorded to stay execution on condition that the defendant paid taxed costs of Kshs.260,000/= by a monthly installment of Kshs.50,000/=;
iii)due to financial constraints, the defendant defaulted for a few months;
iv)the defendant was surprised to receive the eviction order issued on 27th June, 2011.
In the further affidavit, the defendants have deposed that subsequent to the orders of 27th June 2011, they have paid and the plaintiff has accepted Kshs.110,000/= thereby settling the amount in the consent order. They have further deposed that their eviction is imminent as the plaintiff has obtained an eviction order yet their appeal is pending.
The prayer for stay has been spent, the application having been heard inter partes. The only prayer falling for consideration is that seeking the setting aside or varying of the orders of eviction issued on 27th June, 2011. The application is expressed to be brought under Order 22 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which deals with stay of execution in a case where the decree has been sent to another court for execution, clearly not applicable in the situation before me.
The application is opposed by the plaintiff who argues that the defendants were in violation of the consent order having paid only Kshs.150,000/= of the Kshs.260,000/= agreed in the consent. That the defendant having so failed to comply with the consent order, the same lapsed and the plaintiff was at liberty to execute. The court has a wide discretion in an application for setting aside any of its orders.
The consent order in question did not have a default provision. It was payment of the taxed costs by installments pending the final determination of the appeal. Being a consent order, it could only be vacated by the consent of the parties or any other ground upon which a contract can be vacated
Even after the plaintiff filed a replying affidavit in opposition to this application it proceeded to accept the last three installments thereby acknowledging the existence of the consent order or acquiesced.
For the reasons stated the orders of 27th June 2011 are hereby set aside as prayed. I make no orders as to costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered this 26th day of January, 2012.
W. OUKO
JUDGE