1. I have considered the Notice of Motion Application dated 28th September, 2022 together with the affidavit filed in support of even date, the replying affidavit sworn on 10th July, 2023, the submissions of the parties as filed, and the applicable law.
2. The applicant is seeking the following orders as against the Defendants/Respondents;
a. THAT judgement on admission be entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendants for the sum of USD. 281,376/= with costs and interest assessed at 21% per annum from January 2021, as prayed for in the Plaint.
b. Costs
3. It is not in dispute that pursuant to an Agreement for the Supply of Aviation Fuel executed by the Plaintiff and Defendants herein in the year 2019, the Plaintiff supplied aviation fuel to the Defendants on a consistent and reliable pattern on various dates in the years 2019 and thereafter raised the invoices and issued them to the 1st Defendant. As at the 19th day of May 2020, the 1st Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in the sum of USD. 399,021/=.
4. The respondent admitted the debt and at paragraph 4 of its replying affidavit and stated that the parties entered into a repayment plan, and that the respondent has since been making efforts towards settling outstanding sums.
5. At paragraph 6 and 7 of the reply, the respondent further stated that it was able to make numerous payments but could not settle the entire amount owing to a shortfall in revenue it suffered arising out of the Covid 19 pandemic, which affected its operations.
6. At paragraph 7 of the reply the respondent expressly admitted that the outstanding debt due the Plaintiff was the sum of USD 281,376, as at 28 September 2022. However, the applicant clarified that since then several payments were made by the Defendant, and the figure has since reduced to the sum of USD 53,076, which is the amount that the Plaintiff now seeks judgment for based on admission of the same.
7. I further note that the Plaintiff has attached a copy of the Settlement Agreement and Deed of Variation to Guarantee and Indemnity dated 10th January 2021, as evidence of the Agreements between the parties concerning the repayment of debt, and which outlines the obligations and conditions to be performed by the Defendant’s. The same are found at annexures EO-1, EO-4, and EO-5 of the Plaintiff’s supporting affidavit. The said agreement also provides for an interest rate of 21% to applied to on the outstanding balance due.
8. I note that the applicable law is found at Order 13 Rule 2 provides for judgement on admission and states:
Any party may at any stage of a suit, where admission of facts has been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the court may upon such application make such order, or give such judgment, as the court may think just.
9. In Ideal Ceramics vs Suraya Property Group Ltd HCCC 408 of 2016, the Court held that;
“The law on summary judgment vide judgment on admission is now relatively dear. The purpose of the law laid out under Order 13 of the CPR is to ensure that a party whose entitlement is evidently due and admitted does not wait for determination by a Court of a non-existent question, it is undesirable to litigate when there is no question or issue of fact or law. The summary process in this regard assists in ensuring that unnecessary costs and delays are not invited.”
10. In Endebess Development Company Limited v Coast Development Authority [2018] eKLR this court relied on the decision of Choitram vs Nazari H9841KLR 237 where the honourable court spelt the guiding principles of judgment on admission and Madan J stated;
“For the purpose of order XU rule 6, admissions can be express or implied either on the pleadings or otherwise, e.g., in correspondence. Admissions have to be plain and obvious, as plain as a pikestaff and clearly readable because they may result in judgment being entered. They must be obvious on the face of them without requiring a magnifying glass to ascertain their meaning. Much depends upon the language used.
The admissions must leave no room for doubt that the parties passed out of the stage of negotiations onto a definite contract, it matters not if the situation is arguable, even if there is a substantial argument, it is an ingredient of jurisprudence, provided that a plain and obvious case is established upon admissions by analysis."
11. Guided by the above, and based on the record before me, I find it appropriate to enter judgment on admission in the present matter. The debt has been admitted, and there is no question of fact, or law before this court that requires judicial determination. In my view, this is a clear, plain, and obvious case, in which a trail would serve no purpose.
12. I find and hold that the application is with merit. Judgement is hereby entered in the sum of USD 53,076/- together with costs and interest assessed at 21% per annum from January 2021, as prayed for in the Plaint.
13. The file is marked as closed