JOHN SILAS LENANA OLE PULEIY v HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY OF KENYA & another
The bottom line
#When depositing court money, you must confirm the interest rate terms yourself; the court will not cover your losses if you fail to prove a higher rate.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court is functus officio after final judgment and appeal
The court has jurisdiction under section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to determine questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
The Plaintiff argued the court was functus officio since the High Court and Court of Appeal had determined the matter with finality. The court held that section 34(1) confers jurisdiction on the executing court over all questions between the parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The application did not seek a rehearing of the merits but a determination of who should pay the shortfall of the decree, a question of execution within the court's jurisdiction.
Whether the Plaintiff should bear the loss of interest on the deposit
No. The Defendant, as the party depositing the money, was responsible for ascertaining the terms of the deposit; the Plaintiff is entitled to the full decretal sum.
The Defendant argued the Plaintiff insisted on the account being at Co-operative Bank and should bear any interest loss. The court held the decree entitlement was settled and could not be varied; the order was for deposit in a 'reputable bank', not a specific bank. The depositing party had to ascertain the deposit terms, and could not have blamed the Plaintiff had the appeal succeeded on disadvantageous terms.
Whether Co-operative Bank should pay the shortfall in interest
No. In the absence of an agreement or custom requiring treasury-bill rates, the Bank was entitled to apply 3% interest and is not liable for the shortfall.
The Defendant claimed interest equivalent to treasury bill rates but produced no agreement or proof of trade custom or usage requiring banks to invest fixed deposits in treasury bills. The Bank explained that absent agreement it applied 3% per annum, the lowest prevailing rate, less withholding tax. The Defendant did not dispute the computation was based on the 3% rate, so ordering accounts would serve no purpose.
Legal principles established
#- A trial court retains jurisdiction under section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act to determine questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of its decree even after final judgment and appeal.
- The party depositing a decretal sum in a joint interest-earning account as security for stay bears responsibility for ascertaining the terms on which the money is held.
- At common law, interest is not payable on a debt absent express agreement, course of dealing or custom; a party claiming a higher interest rate on a fixed deposit bears the burden of establishing its legal basis.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 24th April 2020
- 2.Costs of the application to the Plaintiff and the interested party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 34(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "JOHN SILAS LENANA OLE PULEIY v HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY OF KENYA & another", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment text. Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.