New International Consultancy Company Limited (Suing by A Power of Attorney No. P/A 65175/1 of Apexvision Limited) & another v Telkom Kenya & another [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial & Tax Division
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
W. A. Okwany
Judgment Date
October 01, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR judgment in New International Consultancy Company Limited v Telkom Kenya, highlighting key legal insights and outcomes from this significant case.

Case Brief: New International Consultancy Company Limited (Suing by A Power of Attorney No. P/A 65175/1 of Apexvision Limited) & another v Telkom Kenya & another [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: New International Consultancy Company Limited (suing by a Power of Attorney No. P/A 65175/1 of Apexvision Limited) v. Telkom Kenya & Sundararama Pattabiraman
- Case Number: HCCC No. 402 of 2018
- Court: High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Commercial and Tax Division
- Date Delivered: October 1, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): W. A. Okwany
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues for determination by the court include:
- Whether there was an error in the court's previous ruling regarding the admitted debt amount.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to provide directions concerning the extent of the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to costs and interest on the admitted portion of the claim.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, New International Consultancy Company Limited and Apexvision Limited, filed an application seeking to amend a previous ruling from November 14, 2019, which misstated the admitted debt owed by the defendants, Telkom Kenya and Sundararama Pattabiraman. The applicants claimed that the correct amount due was Kshs 323,466,970.20 instead of Kshs 223,000,000. The defendants contended that the amount had been settled and argued against the court's jurisdiction to direct the arbitrator's authority.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with the plaintiffs filing an application on January 22, 2020, seeking to amend the previous ruling. The defendants opposed this application through a Grounds of Opposition filed on February 18, 2020. The court considered the written submissions from both parties before making its ruling.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Order 45 Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 80(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, which outline the grounds for reviewing a decree or order based on errors apparent on the face of the record or new evidence.
- Case Law: The court examined the defendants’ affidavit from November 20, 2018, which indicated an admitted debt of Kshs 323,466,970.20, but also noted that Kshs 100,000,000 had already been paid, leaving a balance of Kshs 223,446,970.20. This context was critical in assessing whether an error had occurred.
- Application: The court concluded that there was no error in the previous ruling regarding the admitted debt, confirming that the correct outstanding amount was Kshs 223,446,970.20. Regarding the arbitrator's jurisdiction, the court determined that it lacked authority to define the arbitrator's jurisdiction as per the parties' agreement. However, the court acknowledged an oversight in failing to award costs and interest on the admitted claim, thus granting the applicants their requested relief in this regard.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the application for review was partially successful. It upheld the previous determination regarding the debt amount but awarded costs and interest to the applicant on the admitted sum. This decision underscores the importance of accurate financial representations in legal proceedings and clarifies the court's limitations in arbitrator jurisdiction matters.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling, as the decision was delivered by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of the plaintiffs by awarding them costs and interest on the admitted debt while affirming the previously stated debt amount. This case highlights the complexities involved in civil litigation concerning financial claims and the procedural intricacies surrounding the review of court orders. The ruling emphasizes the need for clarity in financial admissions and the respect for arbitration agreements in commercial disputes.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • New-International-Consultancy-Company-Limited-Suing-by-A-Power-of-Attorney-No-P-A-65175-1-of-Apexvision-Limited--another-v-Telkom-Kenya--another-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1446_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries