SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Dakianga Distributors (K) Limited v Kenya Seed Co. Limited (Civil Appeal (Application) 168 of 2011) [2026] KECA 586 (KLR) (13 March 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KECA 586 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
586
Citation
[2026] KECA 586 (KLR)
Decided
13 March 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal to review the Judgment of the High CourtCoramH.A. OMONDI, L. KIMARU, JOEL NGUGI
Holding

The Judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal on 24th February 2015 is amended to include the order for interest as awarded by the High Court.

Facts

The High Court awarded Kshs.8,776,580 to the applicant (Dakianga Distributors) and Kshs.11,104,180 to the respondent (Kenya Seed Co.) in a civil case. The applicant appealed, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, ordering the respondent to pay Kshs.11,104,180 to the applicant. However, the Court did not include the order for interest as awarded by the High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court committed a clerical error in its judgment of 24th February 2015 that requires intervention by this Court to correct in the interest of justice.

Reasoning

The Court found that the omission of the order for interest was an obvious error and could be corrected under Rule 37(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Outcome

The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent Kshs.11,104,180 plus interest from the date of entry of the Judgment until payment in full.

Orders

  • The sum of Kshs.11,104,180 shall be paid by the respondent to the applicant plus interests from the date of entry of the Judgment until payment in full.

Remedies

  • The applicant shall have the costs of the application.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case