Courts Award Interest from the Date of Filing Suit to Prevent Court Delays from Becoming a Windfall for Debtors

Introduction

In commercial litigation, time is not merely a procedural consideration. It is a substantive factor that determines the real value of what a successful party ultimately recovers. A commercial dispute filed in Kenya today may not reach judgment for three, four, a decade or even more. During all that time, the party who owes money continues to hold it, use it, or invest it, while the party to whom it is owed waits for the slow machinery of justice to turn. The question that arises is whether the law accounts for this disparity. The answer is yes. It does so through the award of interest, and the date from which that interest runs is not a matter of judicial whim but of settled principle.

The General Rule

Interest on a liquidated sum should ordinarily run from the date of filing suit unless the court records reasons for departing from that rule. This principle is firmly entrenched in Kenyan jurisprudence and has been consistently applied by our courts.

In Kuehne + Nagel Limited v Integra Supply Chain Solutions Ltd [2025] KEHC 10010 (KLR), the High Court of Kenya found that the trial court erred in awarding interest from the date of judgment rather than from the date of filing suit, without giving reasons for departing from the general principle. The High Court's decision serves as a timely reminder that judicial discretion, while broad, is not unfettered. Where a court chooses to depart from a settled principle, it must say why.

The Settled Authorities

The general principle has been settled in Kenya by the Court of Appeal in Grain Bulk Handlers Limited v J. B. Maina & Co. Ltd & 2 Others [2006] KECA 126 (KLR) and Prem Lata v Peter Musa Mbiyu [1965] E.A 592 and has been consistently applied ever since. The Court of Appeal in those cases held that where a party has been deprived of the use of money or goods through the wrongful act of another, that party should be compensated for such deprivation by the award of interest from the date of filing suit.

The logic is rooted in fairness. The plaintiff was deprived of the money on the day the suit was filed. The defendant has had the benefit of that money ever since. Interest is the court's way of correcting that imbalance. It is not a penalty. It is compensation for the time value of money.

What This Means in Practical Terms

If you win a case where someone owes you a specific, calculable amount of money, what lawyers call a liquidated sum, such as an unpaid invoice, a bounced cheque, or a defaulted loan, the law says you should be compensated for being kept out of your money from the moment you filed your case, not from the moment the judge delivered the ruling.

The only time a judge can start the clock later is if they give a clear, recorded reason for doing so. If they do not, the higher courts will intervene.

Why This Matters

If interest only started running from the date of judgment, the debtor would effectively enjoy years of free credit at the expense of the creditor. The delay in the court system would become a windfall for the party who withheld what was rightfully owed.

By tying interest to the date of filing suit, the law ensures that the delay in the court system does not become a windfall for the party who withheld what was rightfully yours. It also means that the eventual decree reflects the true value of what you lost, not just the principal sum, but the time value of that money across the entire period you were kept waiting.

The Practical Imperative

The law is clear. But the law does not act on its own. A party seeking to benefit from this principle must be meticulous in drafting and production of evidence. The claim must be specifically pleaded. The sum must be liquidated. The date of filing must be established. The court must be asked, in clear terms, to award interest from the date of filing. A failure to plead interest, or a failure to prove the liquidated nature of the claim, can deprive a successful party of the very compensation the law provides.

Conclusion

The date of filing is not a mere procedural stamp. It is the moment from which the law recognises that a party was wrongfully kept out of their money. It is the moment from which compensation begins to accrue. It is the moment that ensures that the slow pace of justice does not become a benefit to the debtor and a burden to the creditor. In a system where cases can take years to conclude, this principle is not a technicality. It is a matter of justice.

Authored by Benson Odiwuor Otieno, Advocate of the High Court of Kenya.

This article is a publication of the Litigation Practice Notes series, featured in The BOLD Newsletter. For questions, clarifications, or suggestions on this or related subjects, contact the author directly: insights@bensonodiwuor.com / info@benodiwuor.com.