Case ID:162697

My Credit Limited v Singh Prithpal Pandhal [2020] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Civil Appeal 21 of 2020

Parties:

My Credit Limited v Singh Prithpal Pandhal

Date Delivered:

27 Jul 2020

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

High Court at Kisumu

Case Action:

Revision

Judge(s):

Fred Andago Ochieng

Citation:

My Credit Limited v Singh Prithpal Pandhal [2020] eKLR

Court Division:

Civil

County:

Kisumu

Case Outcome:

Appeal allowed

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA

AT KISUMU

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2020

MY CREDIT LIMITED.....................APPELLANT

VERSUS

SINGH PRITHPAL PANDHAL....RESPONDENT

RULING

The Appellant,

MY CREDIT LIMITED

, has asked this court to stay the execution of the Order which the trial court granted on 29

th

May 2020.

1. The court had granted the orders as had been prayed for in the application dated 21

st

May 2020. I find that it is prudent to set out herein the said prayers, which were as follows;

“

1

. THAT this application be treated as

urgent and be heard exparte in the

first instance.

2.

THAT pending the hearing and

determination of this application

interpartes, motor vehicle Registration

number KCH 666G and motor vehicle

Registration KBZ 951N repossessed

herein by the Defendant/Respondent

through M/S PHILIP MWAURA T/A

GILLETE TRADERS AUCTIONEERS be

released to the Plaintiff/Applicant on

running attachment.

3.

THAT pending the hearing and

determination of this application

interpartes there be an order of

injunction restraining the Defendant/

Respondent either by itself or through

its agents, servants, employees or other

person deriving authority from it

howsoever from selling by public auction,

private treaty or otherwise motor vehicle

registration KCH 666G and motor vehicle

registration KBZ 951N.

4.

THAT pending the hearing and

determination of this Application

interpartes the Respondent/Defendant

do render accounts pertaining to the

loan facility dated 13

th

March 2018.

5.

THAT at the hearing of this Application

interpartes there be an order of

injunction restraining the Defendant/

Respondent either by itself or through

its agents, servants, employees or any

other person deriving authority from it

howsoever from selling by public auction,

private treaty or otherwise motor vehicle

registration number KCH 666G and motor

vehicle registration KBZ 951N pending

the hearing and determination of the suit.

6.

THAT costs of this application be provided

for.”

2. It is only prayer 2 in that application which made reference to the release of the 2 vehicles which the Appellant had repossessed.

3. The Respondent wished to have the said vehicles released to him,

“

pending the hearing and determination

of this application inter partes ……”

4. Assuming that the order was granted, it would have been effective prior to the hearing and determination of the application.

5. The Respondent herein intended to have only one order granted upon the inter partes hearing of the application; and that order is set out in prayer 5.

6. In the circumstances, I fail to understand why the Respondent herein is alleging that the Appellant was in contempt of court.

7. Similarly, I fail to comprehend wherefrom the Appellant got the notion that the learned trial magistrate had ordered it to release the 2 vehicles, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.

8. Prayer 5, as granted, serves to restrain the Appellant from selling the 2 vehicles, whether by public auction, or by private treaty, or otherwise, until the suit is heard and determined.

9. However, in the event that my understanding of the orders in question is deemed to be flawed, I first remind myself that the appeal before this court arose from an interlocutory Ruling. In the circumstances, I caution myself about the need to refrain from making any definitive findings on a matter which is still pending substantive determination by the learned trial magistrate.

10. Therefore, this court will not make any pronouncements which would place the trial court in a situation wherein its discretion was hampered by what this court would have stated.

11. It is common ground that the Respondent had offered the 2 vehicles as security for financial facilities which the Appellant accorded to him.

12. It is further common ground that the Respondent herein fell into arrears.

13. Notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent had not repaid the facilities, and that he was in arrears, there was an order for the unconditional release of the securities to him.

14. I hold the considered view that the appeal is definitely arguable.

15. I find that if the vehicles were released to the Respondent, unconditionally, the appeal may end up being no more than an academic exercise.

16. On the other hand, if the vehicles are kept by the Appellant pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, the Respondent could suffer irreparable loss, in the event that the suit ultimately succeeded.

17. Justice demands that the court strikes a delicate balance between the 2 parties.

18. But before I do so, I wish to make it clear that when the Appellant moved the court, with an application for stay of execution, that cannot be deemed to constitute contempt of court. When a party who has lodged an appeal files an application for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the said appeal, the party was exercising a legitimate legal right.

19. Reverting to the task of balancing the rights of the parties, I am alive to the fact that the Respondent has asserted that the contract was unconscionable.

20. Until and unless the Respondent persuades the court that the express terms and conditions of the contract which he freely executed were unconscionable, the fact remains that the parties should, in the meantime comply with the said terms and conditions.

21. However, as there is the possibility that the trial court may find the said terms and conditions unconscionable, justice will be done to both parties if the court orders, as I hereby do, that;

a. The Respondent will provide Security

in the nature of either a Fixed Deposit

or an unconditional Bank Guarantee,

in favour of the Appellant for a sum of

Kshs 3,000,000/=.

b. Upon the provision of the said Security,

the 2 vehicles will be released to the

Respondent.

c. The Respondent will continue to make

monthly remittances of a sum of

Kshs 250,000/=. The said money will

be remitted to the Appellant on or before

the last date of each month, with effect

from 31

st

August 2020.

d. The Respondent shall ensure that the

Tracking Devices which the Appellant

shall affix to each of the vehicles is

not tampered with at all.

If the said devices shall fail to remit

to the Appellant appropriate signals

of the vehicles location, the Appellant

shall require the Respondent to restore

the devices to proper working condition

forthwith.

e. The trial court will determine whether

or not the money remitted by the

Respondent was sufficient, or less or

more than that which was payable by

the Respondent.

Consequential orders shall be made by

the trial court upon its making a

determination on this issue.

22. Finally, I order the costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU

This

27

th

day of

July

2020

FRED A. OCHIENG

JUDGE