Mary Kipchumba v Bog Tambach Teachers Training College
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that when a court decree doesn't specify an interest rate, the standard 12% per year applies, increasing what judgment debtors owe.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#The applicable interest rate on the principal sum where the original decree was silent on the rate
The applicable rate is 12% per annum, being the rate used by the courts absent special or exceptional circumstances, rather than the 6% under Section 26(2) found by the High Court or the 14% contended for by the appellant.
The Court extracted three principles from Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act: the trial court's judicious discretion over rates; the discretion covering the period from filing to judgment and from judgment to payment; and the inapplicability of Section 26 to the pre-filing period. Finding the original decree did not specify a rate, and that no higher or lower rate had been ordered, the Court relied on its jurisprudence (Orix Oil, Autolog Kenya, Permuga Auto Spares) to fix 12% per annum from filing until payment in full.
The scope of a second appellate court's mandate
A second appeal is confined to matters of law, unless the courts below considered matters they should not have, failed to consider matters they should have, or the decision is perverse.
The Court stated its duty as a second appellate court by reference to Stanley N. Muriithi & another v Bernard Munene Ithiga, adopting the standard formulation that only questions of law fall for determination at second appeal, with the stated exceptions. This framed the entire appeal as a question of the correct legal rate of interest.
Whether Practice Note No. 1 of 1982 displaced the statutory rate
Had the court specified an interest rate in the decree, the practice direction setting 12% in the absence of valid reason for a higher or lower rate would have guided the Court; here no rate was ordered, so the Court determined the appropriate rate from its own jurisprudence.
The judgment reproduces Practice Direction No. 1 of 1982 issued by Simpson AG CJ, which provides that in the absence of valid reason for a higher or lower rate the rate should be 12%. The Court noted the original decree indicated no rate, so there was no 'higher or lower rate' question; the appellant's suggestion of 14% or 12% under the practice directions did not displace the Court's reliance on its rich jurisprudence fixing 12%.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal confines itself to matters of law only, unless it is shown that the courts below considered matters they should not have considered, failed to consider matters they should have considered, or the decision is perverse.
- The trial court has wide discretion to award and fix the rate of interest, to be exercised judiciously; an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court proceeded on an erroneous principle or was plainly and obviously wrong.
- Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to the period before a suit is filed; interest prior to filing is a matter of substantive law, claimable only by contract, mercantile usage pleaded and proved, statutory right, or implied agreement from course of dealing.
- Where a decree is silent on further interest, the established rate used by the courts absent special or exceptional circumstances is 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is merited and allowed with costs
- 2.Orders accordingly, dated and delivered at Nakuru on 30th June 2023
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Eldoret (Kabarnet HCCA No. 2 of 2018)
- Kabarnet HCCA No. 2 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Civil Procedure Act, limited to matters of law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Keiyo Teachers Co-operative Savings and Credit Society v Ojal & 7 others (Environment and Land Case 253 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4257 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4257 (KLR)9 Jul 2026
- Keiyo Teachers Co-operative Savings and Credit Society v Ojal & 7 others (Environment and Land Case 253 of 2012) [2026] KEELC 4257 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4257 (KLR)9 Jul 2026applied
- Nkugwe Investments Limited v Kihara & 3 others (Sued on their Own Behalf and on Behalf of the Estate of the Late Paul Samuel Kihara) (Environment and Land Case 512 of 2005) [2026] KEELC 3135 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3135 (KLR)14 May 2026applied
- Cedar Pharmacare & 2 others v Onyango (Miscellaneous Application E024 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1683 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 1683 (KLR)10 Jun 2025distinguished
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mary Kipchumba v Bog Tambach Teachers Training College", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment text. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/802/eng@2023-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.