[2004] KEHC 1921 (KLR)
The court held that the defendants, having entered into a consent order in the suit, had submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court under the procedure by plaint. They could not subsequently challenge the validity of the proceedings on the basis of procedural irregularity, as this would amount to an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 1921 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Abdalla S. Karama; Plaintiff: Fathiya S. Karama; Plaintiff: Swabir S. Karama; Plaintiff: Munaa S. Karama; Plaintiff: Ghubesha S. Karama; Defendant: Said S. Karama; Defendant: Ahmed S. Karama
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 61 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out of Pleadings, Probate and Administration, Consent Orders, Distribution of Estate
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abdalla S. Karama
Plaintiff
Fathiya S. Karama
Plaintiff
Swabir S. Karama
Plaintiff
Munaa S. Karama
Plaintiff
Ghubesha S. Karama
Plaintiff
Said S. Karama
Defendant
Ahmed S. Karama
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be struck out for being improperly instituted by plaint instead of originating summons under Order 36 or under the Succession Act.
- 2 Whether the defendants, having entered into a consent order, can challenge the procedure of the suit.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to continue the suit for distribution of the estate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the defendants, having entered into a consent order in the suit, had submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court under the procedure by plaint. They could not subsequently challenge the validity of the proceedings on the basis of procedural irregularity, as this would amount to an attempt to evade their obligations under the consent order. The court emphasized that rules of procedure are meant to facilitate justice, not to obstruct it. Therefore, the application to strike out the plaint was dismissed, and the suit was allowed to proceed. Costs were ordered to be paid out of the estate.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to strike out the plaint is dismissed.
- Costs to be paid out of the estate.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 61 OF 2003
1. ABDALLA S. KARAMA
2. FATHIYA S. KARAMA
3. SWABIR S. KARAMA
4. MUNAA S. KARAMA
5. GHUBESHA S. KARAMA………………………………PLAINTIFFS
= V E R S U S=
1. SAID S. KARAMA
2. AHMED S. KARAMA………………………………DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
In my Ruling dated 18/7/2003 I pointed out that disputes between beneficiaries and administrators should be brought under Civil Procedure Rules, Order 36 by Originating Summons. Thee is also the provisions of Succession Act, Cap.160 which deals with succession matters and there is set out therein rules of Probate and Administration of Estates of Deceased persons.
This application is now brought under Notice of Motion to strike out the Plaint filed herein and all other proceedings counsel no doubt influenced by my remarks.
Mr. Khatib has strongly opposed this application saying that the Applicants took out P & A 124 of 1997 and obtained a Grant of Probate and to date have refused to distribute the estate. That the say of Notice To Show Cause will greatly prejudice the Plaintiffs as they have not been paid their lawful shares. That the Plaintiffs are suffering hardship as their shares have not been paid for a considerable time. Mr. Khatib emphasized that the order to be executed was a consent entered by both parties on 7/4/2003 and the same has not been set aside and therefore no party should be allowed to breach the same.
I have perused the order and it is clear at that stage the validity of proceedings was not raised.
Mr. Khatib also pointed out that matters commenced in Order 36 can be converted to suits under Rule10 thereof and therefore there is nothing to prevent this suit to be continued by a Plaint.
The pleadings in P & A No.124 of 1997 have been exhibited. Application for revocation of the Grant appears similar to this suit but does not seek similar orders. This means that if the Plaintiffs in this suit wished to raise the matter of failure to distribute the estate they would have to file application in that file.
It is my view therefore that the Applicants herein have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of court under this procedure by Plaint having entered into consent orders. They should not be heard to challenge the suit. This would mean trying to abandon their obligations under the consent order they entered into freely.
For these reasons I do not order the suit to be struck off. Rules of Procedure are handmaidens of justice not the mistress.
I therefore dismiss the application.
Costs to be paid out of the estate.
Dated at Mombasa this 27th day of February, 2004.
JOYCE KHAMINWA
J U D G E
27/2/04
Ruling read in present of:-
Mr. Akanga – for Kilonzo
Absent – Mr. Khatib
JOYCE KHAMINWA
J U D G E