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

DELKAN ENTERPRISES LTD v MASAKU COUNTRY COUNCIL [2008] KEHC 2409 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 2409 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2409
Citation
[2008] KEHC 2409 (KLR)
Decided
27 May 2008
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for review of an order made on 17.8.2006CoramIsaac Lenaola
Holding

The order of review is granted, and the Plaintiff is obligated to deposit Kshs. 90,000 into court, and the motor vehicles are released unconditionally.

Facts

On 18.3.2005, the Defendant seized two motor vehicles due to lack of a business permit. On 9.8.2006, the Plaintiff applied for their release, and on 17.8.2006, an order was made for the Plaintiff to deposit Kshs. 90,000 in court and for James Singh to make certain undertakings. The advocates failed to agree on a joint account, leading to the present application.

Issues

  1. Whether the order of review should be granted
  2. Whether the Plaintiff has complied with the consent order

Reasoning

The Plaintiff has practically complied with the consent order by depositing Kshs. 90,000 in court, and the delay in releasing the vehicles is a serious inconvenience.

Outcome

Grant of review

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is obligated to deposit Kshs. 90,000 into court
  • Motor vehicles KAF 351Z and KAP 014N are released unconditionally to the Plaintiff

Remedies

  • The Plaintiff is released from the obligation to deposit the full amount of Kshs. 90,000

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Order XLIV Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Kimita and another vs Wakaburu [1985] LLR 246 (CAK)
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