Apex Security Services Limited v Kenya Medical Research Institute; Autobacs Limited & another (Intended Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial & Tax Division
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Justice Maureen A. Odero
Judgment Date
October 02, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Apex Security Services Limited v Kenya Medical Research Institute; Autobacs Limited & another [2020] eKLR. Gain insights into judicial reasoning and implications for security service contracts in Kenya.

Case Brief: Apex Security Services Limited v Kenya Medical Research Institute; Autobacs Limited & another (Intended Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Apex Security Services Limited v. Kenya Medical Research Institute and Others
- Case Number: Civil Suit No. 411 of 2015
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial & Tax Division
- Date Delivered: 2nd October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Justice Maureen A. Odero
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court were whether the Interested Parties (Autobacs Limited and Paul Kimani) should be granted a stay of judgment issued on 9th February 2017, and whether there was merit in their application to be enjoined in the suit.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Apex Security Services Limited, filed a suit against the Defendant, Kenya Medical Research Institute, seeking a judgment for Kshs. 14,325,000. The Interested Parties, Autobacs Limited and Paul Kimani, claimed they had a formal agreement with the Plaintiff allowing them to operate under the Plaintiff's name in exchange for a commission. They alleged that they secured a contract with the Defendant, which was financed and managed by them. The Interested Parties contended that the Plaintiff secretly filed the suit and obtained a judgment despite having already received their commission, thus seeking to stay the execution of the judgment.

4. Procedural History:
The Interested Parties filed a Notice of Motion Application on 20th August 2019, seeking to stay the judgment and be enjoined in the suit. The Plaintiff opposed this application through a Replying Affidavit, asserting that they had already received the payment in question. The Defendant also opposed the application, confirming that the payment had been made. The application was canvassed through written submissions, with the Interested Parties submitting on 27th February 2020 and the Plaintiff submitting on 20th February 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The application was based on Order 1 Rule 8, 9, and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. The court considered these provisions in the context of the application for a stay of judgment and the request for joinder.
- Case Law: The court did not explicitly cite previous case law in the ruling; however, it relied on principles of civil procedure and the standard of proof in civil cases, which is on a balance of probabilities.
- Application: The court found that the Interested Parties' application to stay the judgment was rendered moot as the Plaintiff had already received the payment of Kshs. 14,325,000. Evidence provided by the Defendant confirmed that the payment was made in compliance with the court's judgment. The court ruled that since the payment had been made, there was nothing left to stay, and thus the application was dismissed.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Notice of Motion Application dated 20th August 2020, ruling that the application had been overtaken by events due to the payment already being made. The court transferred the main suit to the Milimani Chief Magistrates Court for further proceedings, highlighting that the case's value fell within the jurisdiction of that court.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling, as the decision was unanimous.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya dismissed the application by Autobacs Limited and Paul Kimani for a stay of judgment and for joinder in the suit, confirming that the Plaintiff had already received the payment in question. This ruling underscores the importance of timely legal action and the implications of having received payment in civil disputes. The case was subsequently transferred to the Chief Magistrates Court for further determination.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Apex-Security-Services-Limited-v-Kenya-Medical-Research-Institute-Autobacs-Limited--another-Intended-Interested-Parties-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1404_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries