Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | civ suit 1612 of 00 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | SYRONDA LIMITED vs SCHOOL EQUIPMENT PRODUCTION UNIT |
| Date Delivered: | 22 Jun 2001 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) |
| Case Action: | |
| Judge(s): | Tom Mbaluto |
| Citation: | SYRONDA LIMITED vs SCHOOL EQUIPMENT PRODUCTION UNIT[2001] eKLR |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
SYRONDA LIMITED …………………………….………. PLAINTIFF
RULING
This application made on 5.6.2001 and filed in court on the same day seeks to set aside an order purportedly made by this court on 12.4.2001. That order in question was a decree nisi made ex parte by the Deputy Registrar. Accordingly, if it is to be set aside, I suppose it is the Deputy Registrar who should be doing so. The application is therefore clearly misconceived. But apart from that, the application is also incompetent for another reason. It is stated to be made under O. XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Rules. That order deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders. I am therefore unable to see how the order applies to a decree nisi.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1612 OF 2000
VERSUS
SCHOOL EQUIPMENT PRODUCTION UNIT ……... DEFENDANT
Regarding the merits of the application, I must also confess that I found the argument (which was the only ground) advanced in support of the application rather strange. Mr. Njau somehow thought that the defendant/judgment debtor should not be subjected to the usual laws applicable to companies because as he put
“it is a public company owned by the Ministry of Education.”
Since it is common ground that the defendant is a public liability company incorporated under the Companies Act, it is clear that the defendant can only enjoy such rights as are known to companies so registered. Consequently, the notion that it has other rights outside the Companies Act is not supported by any known law. For the above reasons, my finding is that the application wholly lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.
Dated at Nairobi this 22nd day of June, 2001.
T. MBALUTO
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...