[1999] KECA 142 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct in entering summary judgment for the plaintiff bank, as the defence and replying affidavit did not raise any triable issues regarding the principal sum claimed. The only disputes related to interest rates and currency exchange, which the High Court properly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1999] KECA 142 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Yusuf K. Sayani; Appellant: Thuraiya A. Muhsein; Respondent: Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 207 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Bank Customer Relationship, Cheque Dishonour, Exchange Rate Disputes
- 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
Yusuf K. Sayani
Appellant
Thuraiya A. Muhsein
Appellant
Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff bank against the defendants for the amount claimed.
- 2 Whether there existed any triable issues in the defence or replying affidavit that warranted a full trial.
- 3 Whether disputes as to interest rates and currency exchange rates precluded entry of summary judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct in entering summary judgment for the plaintiff bank, as the defence and replying affidavit did not raise any triable issues regarding the principal sum claimed. The only disputes related to interest rates and currency exchange, which the High Court properly reserved for trial. The appellants' advocate had effectively admitted the debt at the hearing, and there was no misdirection or error in the exercise of the High Court's discretion. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- Summary judgment for the respondent in the sum of Shs. 2,698,025.50 is affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 207 OF 1998 BETWEEN
YUSUF K. SAYANI ..................................... 1STAPPELLANT THURAIYA A. MUHSEIN ................................. 2NDAPPELLANT AND BARCLAYS BANK OF KENYA LIMITED ......................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Ruling and Orders of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi delivered by (Hon. Justice Richard Kuloba) on 28th July, 1998 in H.C.C.C. NO. 1911 OF 1997) ************* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This is an appeal by the unsuccessful defendants against the ruling of the superior court (Kuloba, J.) given on 28 July, 1998 whereby he entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff upon the latter's application for summary judgment.
At all material times the defendants were customers of the plaintiff at its Changamwe Road Branch, Nairobi. On or about 12 April, 1995 the defendants deposited with the plaintiff a chequeNo. 0560 drawn on Commerce Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, USA in favour of the first defendant for the sum of US Dollars 62,500for collection in the normal course.
In consideration of the said cheque the defendants were allowed to draw on account against the said cheque which was subsequently returned unpaid, whereupon the plaintiff claimed against the defendants for the value of the said cheque or the amount of Shs.2,698. 025. 50 obtained by them in consideration of the same.
By their defence the defendants denied the claim and, in the alternative, pleaded that the same had been repaid or serviced in full. There was no other worthwhile or relevant defence pleaded. No counterclaim was set up claiming refund of overpayment, if any, made. Nor was the interest claimed denied or alleged to have been excessive.
The plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment.
In his replying affidavit the first defendant raised as the only dispute the interest rates and the rate of exchange at which payment was to be made in Kenya currency. That notwithstanding, at the hearing of the application the defendants' advocate is recorded to have made the following two submissions:-
"Oppose the application.
There was arrangement on how to pay the amount claimed.
The proper amount to be paid has not been ascertained.
No summary judgment until the amount is ascertained."
The learned judge found in favour of the plaintiff and said:-
"So, while there may be a dispute as to currency in which the debt is to be paid and as to the interest rates, the sum of Shs.2,698,025/50 is clearly owed by the defendants to the plaintiff, and there can be no worthwhile defence to that.
The alleged frauds particularised in the defence can have nothing to do with the cheque which admittedly bounced or was dishonoured when due for payment.
In the circumstances, there is hereby entered summary judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally in the sum of Shs. 2,698,025/50. The rest of the claim shall go for trial. Costs to await the trial on the disputed sums. Orders accordingly."
With respect, we fully agree. There were no triable issues raised in the defence or replying affidavit. The only matters in dispute were reserved by the learned judge for trial. In our judgment, he did not err in principle or otherwise and he was plainly right. In the face of a clear admission (apart from those made in the correspondence) made at the hearing of the application for summary judgment by the defendants' advocate the learned judge had no alternative but to enter judgment (as he did) reserving the alleged matters of dispute for trial.
On the basis that the learned judge had a discretion, we are satisfied that he did not misdirect himself in any way so as to vitiate the exercise of his discretion or warrant an interference by this Court.
Upon a careful consideration of the matter as a whole, we are satisfied that this appeal has no merit whatsoever.
Accordingly,it is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of March, 1999.
R.S.C. OMOLO
................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
P.K. TUNOI
.................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.A. LAKHA
...................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR