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

ARTHUR KINUTHIA ALBERT v PERMANENT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH [2008] KEHC 3830 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 3830 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3830
Citation
[2008] KEHC 3830 (KLR)
Decided
24 June 2008
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent opposed the ex parte application seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Respondent to pay the Applicant a sum of Kshs.1,198,793, costs, and interest awarded by the court in CMCC No. 773/03.CoramR.P.V. WENDOH
Holding

The court cannot compel the payment of interest not awarded by the court in CMCC 773/03 and declines to grant the order prayed.

Facts

The Applicant filed MCCC 773/03 at Milimani Court and judgment was entered on 26th July 2004 for Kshs.1,095,408. The Respondent paid the sum to the Applicant in September 2006. The Applicant sought an order of mandamus to compel the Respondent to pay the decretal sum, costs, and interest awarded by the court in CMCC No. 773/03.

Issues

  1. Whether the court can direct the payment of interest not prayed for in the plaint.
  2. Whether the court can determine the amount of interest due to the applicant.

Reasoning

The judgment in CMCC 773/03 did not provide for payment of interest, and the decree drawn includes interest at 12% per annum, which is foreign to the judgment. The court's jurisdiction is limited to compelling the Respondent to pay based on the judgment, decree, and certificate of order.

Outcome

The court dismisses the prayer on interest and orders the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs of the Notice of Motion.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (3)
  • 798/03 THARA TRADING LTD V NK BROTHERS LTD.
  • HC 1140/00 MANCHESTER OUTFITTERS LTD V KENGEN CO. LTD.
  • Halsbury Laws of England 4th Edition paragraph 553 page 276
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