HECO UBERSEEHANDEL v MAC'S PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED [2000] KECA 201 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal confirmed that a party claiming a fixed Kenya Shilling amount in its plaint is stuck with that figure and cannot claim more on appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the rate of conversion of the Deutsche Mark debt should have been the rate prevailing at the date of judgment or payment, rather than the rate fixed in the plaint.
- 2.Whether the appellant was bound by the specific Kenya Shilling quantification in its plaint, which it never sought to amend.
- 3.Whether the learned Judge erred in awarding the Kenya Shilling equivalent of DM 124,320 exactly as claimed in the plaint.
Key legal issues
#At what date and rate should a foreign currency debt or judgment be converted into Kenya Shillings?
The applicable principle, drawn from Beluf Establishment v The Attorney General and accepted by both counsel, is that conversion must be at the rate applicable at the time of payment or enforcement of the judgment. However, the principle did not avail the appellant because it had claimed and quantified a fixed Kenya Shilling sum in its unamended plaint.
The court identified the eight grounds of appeal as predicated on the Beluf principle. In Beluf, Akiwumi JA, after a very full consideration of the authorities including Miliangos and Despinah, concluded that the conversion date should be when payment is made or judgment enforced. Counsel for both sides agreed that Beluf correctly states the legal position in Kenya, and even the trial judge had acknowledged the principle. The court endorsed the principle but held that the appellant could not invoke it because of its pleadings.
Was the appellant bound by the Kenya Shilling quantification in its plaint, or could it claim conversion at the judgment-date rate on appeal?
The appellant was bound by its pleadings. Having claimed DM 124,320 equivalent to K.Shs.1,245,064.80 in its plaint and never sought amendment, it was entitled only to that specific claim, and the trial judge was entitled to award exactly what was claimed.
Order VII Rule 6 requires every plaint to state specifically the relief claimed. The appellant's plaint and its written submissions prayed for judgment as pleaded, quantifying the debt in shillings as at the time of filing suit; at no stage did it seek to amend the plaint to reflect a different shilling amount. Shields J gave precisely the relief prayed for. A litigant who obtains exactly what it asked the court to give cannot legitimately complain on appeal that the award was undervalued, so all eight grounds of appeal failed.
Legal principles established
#- Where judgment is given in a foreign currency, that is, a currency other than the Kenya Shilling, the rate of conversion must be the rate applicable at the time of payment or enforcement of the judgment.
- A plaintiff is bound by the specific relief claimed in its plaint; a court which awards exactly what was claimed does not err, and a party who wishes to rely on a different conversion date or higher quantification must amend its pleadings.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs thereof to the respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court (referred to in the judgment as the superior court) at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not expressly stated in the judgment; the matter came before the Court of Appeal as a first appeal from the High Court at Nairobi.
Relief refused
#Conversion of the DM 124,320 debt into Kenya Shillings at the rate prevailing at the date of judgment (or payment), which would have yielded a higher award than the K.Shs.1,245,064.80 claimed in the plaint.
The appellant was bound by its pleadings: it had claimed a specific shilling sum in its plaint, never amended it, and having obtained exactly the relief prayed for could not complain on appeal.
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs thereof to the respondent (the appellant to bear the respondent's costs of the appeal).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That being our view of the matter this, appeal fails and our order shall be that it is dismissed with costs thereof to the respondent.
where judgment is given in a foreign currency, that is, a currency other than the Kenya Shilling, the rate of conversion must be the rate applicable at the time of payment or enforcement
The appellant having got exactly what it asked the learned Judge to give it, it cannot legitimately complain before us that the Judge was wrong in giving to it what it had asked for in its prayers.
Kenya courts in applying the common law can in proper cases, express judgment in foreign currency convertible at the rates prevailing on the date of payment or enforcement of the judgment
Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives two different lodgment dates for the plaint: it first states that the plaint 'was lodged in the superior court at Nairobi on 20th January, 1988', but later states it was 'lodged in the superior court on 18th February, 1988'. The discrepancy does not affect the outcome.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "HECO UBERSEEHANDEL v MAC'S PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED [2000] KECA 201 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/201/eng@2000-04-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.