[2018] KEHC 9021 (KLR)
The court found that the consent order expressly provided for the release of the Ksh.250,000 deposited in court to the landlord, not to an agent or any other party. The particulars of the landlord's account were to be supplied, but instead, the applicant sought release to Regent Management Ltd., who is not the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 9021 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Welco Services International; Respondent: Dr. Rajpal Singh Jabal
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 317 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Release of Funds
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Consent Orders, Release of Court Deposits, Enforcement 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
Welco Services International
Appellant
Dr. Rajpal Singh Jabal
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Post Judgment Application for Release of Funds
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the funds deposited in court should be released to Regent Management Ltd. as requested by the applicant.
- 2 Whether the consent order recorded by the parties permits release of funds to an agent rather than the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the consent order expressly provided for the release of the Ksh.250,000 deposited in court to the landlord, not to an agent or any other party. The particulars of the landlord's account were to be supplied, but instead, the applicant sought release to Regent Management Ltd., who is not the landlord. The court held that it cannot alter the terms of the consent order or substitute the agent for the landlord in the absence of a further consent or clear agreement by the parties. The application to release the funds to Regent Management Ltd. was therefore without merit and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 14th November, 2017 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2013
WELCO SERVICES INTERNATIONAL.........APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
DR. RAJPAL SINGH JABAL..........................RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
1. The application dated 14th November, 2017 principally seeks orders that the funds deposited in court pursuant to the court orders dated 26th July, 2013 be released to Regent Management Ltd.
2. The application is predicated on the grounds stated therein and is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant, Dr. Rajpal Singh Jabal. It is stated that this court vide a judgment herein delivered on 22nd July, 2015 directed that the sum of Ksh.250,000/= deposited in the Lower Court be held in court until the matter was heard and determined or upon application. It is further stated that on 4th March, 2016 the parties recorded a consent order for the release of the Ksh.250,000/= to the landlord whose account details were to be supplied by the Applicant’s counsel.
3. The application is opposed. It is stated in the replying affidavit that the landlord is the Government of the Republic of Uganda, not Regent Management Ltd. It is further stated that the consent order was for the release of the sum of Ksh.250,000/= deposited in court to the Landlord. The Respondent company expressed it’s reservations concerning the release of the money to the agent. The Respondent’s position is that the release of the money to the agent may give rise to issues of accountability. It is further contended that the particulars of the landlord’s account have never been supplied to the court but that the court has instead been supplied with the particulars of a party who is not the landlord.
4. During the hearing of the application the Respondent was not in court although served. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the Applicant.
5. The consent order the subject of the application has been exhibited by the Applicant. The said order states as follows:
“1. That Kshs.70,000/= to be paid the landlord within 10 days from today’s date.
2. That Ksh. 250,000/= deposited in the High Court to be released to the landlord.
3. That the defence counsel to supply the particulars of the Landlord’s Account.
4. That the Defendant to equally pay his part of the rent to the landlord.
5. That subsequently payments of Ksh.10,000/= to be deposited direct to landlord’s Account by 10th of every month.”
6. It is abundantly clear from the said consent order that payment of the Ksh. 250,000/= deposited in court was to be released to the landlord. The particulars of the Landlord’s account were to be supplied.
7. The law on consent orders as stated by the Court of Appeal in the case of Flora Wasike v Destimo Wamboko [1988] IKAR 625is as follows:
“It is now settled law that a consent judgment or order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify setting a contract aside, or if certain conditions remain to be fulfilled, which are not carried out.”
8. A court cannot write a contract between parties (See for example National Bank of Kenya Ltd v PipePlastic Samkolit (K) Ltd & another (2002) EA 503).
9. If parties herein wished to have the money released to the agents as prayed herein, they could have recorded the consent accordingly or entered into a further consent to indicate that payment be made through the agent.
10. With the foregoing, I find no merits in the application and dismiss the same with costs.
Date, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 1st day of March, 2018
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE