Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (Jkuat) has moved to the Court of Appeal seeking to quash the payment of $360,418 (about Sh48 million at the current exchange rates) to Rwandan after closing its campus in Kigali.
Jkuat said in the application that Martin Higiro, who owned the building where the campus was situated before it was shut down, did not disclose material facts to the High Court in Kenya, when the judgment was on July 28, 2023.
The university says the failure to disclose material facts was sufficient to quash the registration of the judgment.
“The Appellant (Jkuat) had paid the entire sum due to the respondent (Mr Higiro) and he will be unjustly enriched by execution which will amount to double payment,” said the university through lawyer Patrick Lutta.
Then Education Cabinet secretary Fred Matiang'i directed Jkuat and Kenyatta University to close their campuses in Rwanda and Tanzania, over alleged poor performance and operational issues.
But soon after the closure, Mr Higiro moved to the Commercial Court in Kigali and obtained a judgment in his favour for alleged breach of contract.
He later moved to the High Court in Kenya in May 2023 seeking the registration of the foreign judgment. The application was heard ex-parte and, in a ruling, delivered on July 28, 2023, the court directed that the foreign judgment be registered.
The university later filed an application seeking to aside the judgment, but it was dismissed by High Court judge Peter Mulwa on April 26, 2024.
In the appeal, Jkuat said it had paid the entire sum to Mr Higiro and he will be unjustly enriching himself if allowed to execute the judgement and demand the payment.
The university said it was apprehensive that the Rwandan may commence the execution process.
Mr Higiro wants the appeal dismissed stating that Jkuat was introducing some documents that were not part of the record before the High Court.
He said the sole purpose of the appeal was to frustrate him from enjoying the fruits of his judgement by bringing out issues that should have been canvassed from the beginning by they chose to ignore the summons and the original case.
“The appellant contracted in a foreign country and decided to flee with outstanding obligations, a decree was issued by a court of competent jurisdiction as such it is only fair that the respondent be allowed to harvest the fruits of its judgement, which execution can only be efficient within the jurisdiction of this honourable court,” he said.
