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

MOHAMMED OSMAN MAALIM v EURO BANK LIMITED [2006] KEHC 2139 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 2139 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2139
Citation
[2006] KEHC 2139 (KLR)
Decided
19 June 2006
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) in Civil Case 73 of 2000.CoramMARY KASANGO
Holding

Judgment is entered for the defendant on the counterclaim for kshs 20,023,044.07 with interest at 34% per annum compounded from 1st June 2002 until payment in full. The plaintiff's case is dismissed with costs to the defendant.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mohammed Osman Maalim, opened an account with the defendant, Euro Bank Limited, and signed the defendant's terms and conditions. He applied for overdraft facilities and charged his properties as security. Despite defaulting, the defendant continued to provide further facilities and eventually sought to recover the amount due from the plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's counterclaim for kshs 20,023,044.07 with interest can be upheld.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's case can be proved and the counterclaim dismissed.

Reasoning

The evidence of the defendant's witness, Joshua Muricho, was supported by exhibited documents and proved the defendant's counterclaim on a balance of probability. The plaintiff failed to prove his case.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim for kshs 20,023,044.07 with interest at 34% per annum compounded from 1st June 2002 until payment in full.
  • Defendant granted costs of the counterclaim.
  • Plaintiff's case dismissed with costs to the defendant.
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