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

Prime Bank Limited v Samuel M’Inoti [2018] KEHC 10084 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 10084 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
10084
Citation
[2018] KEHC 10084 (KLR)
Decided
7 June 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCommercial DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramF. TUIYOT
Holding

Judgment is entered for the sum of Kshs. 7,056,379.95 in favor of the Plaintiff as against the Defendant

Facts

The Plaintiff, Prime Bank Limited, claimed a sum of Kshs. 7,056,379/95 on account of money lent and financial accommodation. The Defendant, Samuel M'Inoti, denied the claim and raised a Counter-claim for Kshs. 3,015,820/= in account of a fixed deposit.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant operated a current account and a loan account with the Plaintiff
  2. Whether the Defendant owed the sum of Kshs. 6,865,222.95 and interest thereon at 10% p.a to the Plaintiff as at 31.5.2000
  3. Whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a written agreement dated 28.1.1999 for a loan of Kshs. 4,803,670 and interest thereon at 10% p.a. to be advanced to the Defendant
  4. Whether the Defendant defaulted in repayment of the said loan

Reasoning

The Court found that the Plaintiff granted a loan facility of Kshs. 4,803,670/= to the Defendant and that the Defendant defaulted in repayment. The counterclaim was dismissed.

Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of Kshs. 7,056,379.95
  • Interest on Kshs. 6,865,222.95 at 10% per annum and on Kshs. 191,157 at 27% per annum
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiff

Remedies

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of Kshs. 7,056,379.95
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