Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherCivil Appeal No. 35 of 2017 (reference from Court of Appeal, Kisumu)· [2018] KEELC 3901 (KLR)

West Kenya Sugar Company Limited v Busia Sugar Industries Limited & 2 others [2018] KEELC 3901 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
28 March 2018
671 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court ruled that when parties disagree over a court decree, they must follow the formal settlement procedure rather than ask the judge to reinterpret the judgment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the High Court at Bungoma (S. Mukunya J, 28 March 2018) arose from a dispute between advocates over two decrees extracted from the same judgment in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2017 (Busia Sugar Industries Ltd v West Kenya Sugar Co. Ltd & 2 Others). By letters dated 16th and 14th March 2018, the firms of Ogejo, Olendo & Company Advocates and Hassan Madowo Saidi Advocates informed the Deputy Registrar that the Court of Appeal in Kisumu, by a ruling dated 13th March 2018, had referred the parties back to the High Court under Order 21 rule 8(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules to resolve the disagreement over the decrees within seven days. When the parties appeared on 21st March 2018 they agreed that the matter was not before the court for interpretation of the judgment. The court perused the Court of Appeal directions, reproduced the text of Order 21 rule 8(4), and held that the parties had not complied with its requirements. It directed that the parties file draft decrees marked as the law requires, for the Registrar to list before a Judge. The court further noted that no issues had been agreed when the petition was heard; the court had framed its own issues (paragraph 37 of the judgment) and made findings on them, and the decree should be extracted from those issues and findings. The court declined to do anything more, holding that the law does not mandate any further step by the Judge after judgment is delivered. No costs order was made. The judgment was read in open court at Bungoma in the presence of Mr. Ipapu and Mr. Anwar for the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Procedure for settling a decree where parties disagree on the draft decree

Holding

The procedure under Order 21 rule 8(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules was not followed; the parties must file draft decrees marked 'for settlement' for listing before a Judge

Reasoning

The Court of Appeal directed the parties to take appropriate action under Order 21 rule 8(4) to resolve the dispute over the two extracted decrees. The court found that the parties had not complied with that rule, which requires filing of the draft decree marked 'for settlement' and listing by the registrar in chambers before a Judge. The court declined to interpret its judgment or choose between the decrees, holding that the law prescribes the process and does not mandate anything further from the Judge after delivery of judgment.

p. 3
02

Source of the decree where no issues were agreed at the hearing

Holding

The decree must be extracted from the issues the court itself framed (paragraph 37 of the judgment) and its findings on those issues

Reasoning

The court noted that when the petition was filed and heard, there were no agreed issues. The court had framed the issues it saw arising from the petition and made findings on them. It therefore directed that the decree be drawn from those issues and findings, rather than from any party's version.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • On any disagreement with a draft decree, a party must file the draft decree marked 'for settlement' and the registrar shall list it in chambers before the Judge who heard the case or any other Judge
  • Where no issues were agreed by the parties, the decree should be extracted from the issues framed by the court and its findings on them

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the requirement of Order 21 rule 8(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules had not been complied with and the parties must file draft decrees marked as the law requires
  2. 2.That the Registrar shall list the draft decrees before a Judge as required by Order 21 rule 8(4)
  3. 3.That the decree should be extracted from the issues framed by the court at paragraph 37 of the judgment and the findings made on them
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 21 rule 8(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, pursuant to directions of the Court of Appeal dated 13th March 2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "West Kenya Sugar Company Limited v Busia Sugar Industries Limited & 2 others [2018] KEELC 3901 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2017 (reference from Court of Appeal, Kisumu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3901/eng@2018-03-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.