[2001] KEHC 531 (KLR)
The court determined that since the third party is already a party to the suit and the issues and evidence regarding liability are the same as those between the plaintiffs and defendants, it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy to hear the third party proceedings at the same time as the main suit. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KEHC 531 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Akil Fakhrudin Mohamedali; Plaintiff: Karim Hassanal Shariff; Defendant: Shital R. Patel; Defendant: Murgian Transport (K) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 397 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Directions Regarding Third Party Proceedings
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Third Party Proceedings, Consolidation of Suits, Contributory Negligence, Limitation of Actions
- 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
Akil Fakhrudin Mohamedali
Plaintiff
Karim Hassanal Shariff
Plaintiff
Shital R. Patel
Defendant
Murgian Transport (K) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Directions Regarding Third Party Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the third party proceedings between the defendants and the third party should be heard simultaneously with the main suit between the plaintiffs and defendants.
- 2 Whether the deceased husband can be held contributorily negligent in a suit where his wife seeks damages.
- 3 Whether the third party notice is barred by limitation under the Law Reform Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that since the third party is already a party to the suit and the issues and evidence regarding liability are the same as those between the plaintiffs and defendants, it is in the interest of justice and judicial economy to hear the third party proceedings at the same time as the main suit. The objections raised by the plaintiffs regarding contributory negligence and limitation are matters that can be addressed during final submissions and do not justify delaying or bifurcating the proceedings. No prejudice to the plaintiffs was demonstrated by allowing the simultaneous hearing. Therefore, the application for directions was allowed, and the third party was ordered to...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The case as between the third party and the defendants shall be heard at the same time as that between the plaintiffs and defendants.
- The third party is to file their defence within 14 days from the date of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 397 OF 1996
AKIL FAKHRUDIN MOHAMEDALI……………….. 1ST PLAINTIFF
KARIM HASSANAL SHARIFF ……………………… 2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SHITAL R. PATEL …………………………………… 1ST DEFENDANT
MURGIAN TRANSPORT (K) LIMITED ……………. 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The application before me is a Chamber Summons brought under Order 1 rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules and seeks directions as regards the Third Party Notices taken out by the First Defendant upon KARIM HASSANALI SHARIFF and AKIL FAKHRUDIN MOHAMEDALI. The three cases, that is HCCC 397, 398 and 399 of 1996 were consolidated. The Third Party are the Administrators of the estate of ARIEF MOHAMEDALI who was at the time the driver of motor vehicle KAB 439R in which the deceased (his wife) in HCCC 397 of 1996 and Plaintiff minors (his children) in HCCC 399 of 1996 were traveling.
Mr. Mabeya for the Applicant argued that by hearing the case on liability as between the Defendants and Third Party at the same time as that of the Plaintiff and the Defendants would safe the parties as well as the court on time as the issues are the same. Opposing the application Mr. Thuo for the Plaintiffs submitted that the deceased husband cannot in law be held to be contributory negligent in a case where his wife seeks damages and further that the even if this was to be possible, then the third Party notice would fail by reason of limitation under the Law Reform Act.
I have considered the arguments and authorities referred to herein. The Third Party is already a party to the suit and it is not denied by the defendants that the issues and evidence as regards liability will be the same as that between the Plaintiff and the defendants. The court has a duty to the litigants to ensure as far as possible the disposal of their cases is not delayed simply on account of issues that can be determined once and for all. I have considered the reasons advanced in opposition to the application and find that these are issues that can be dealt with during the submissions at the close of the trial. It has not been shown that the Plaintiffs will suffer only prejudice if the Third Party case is heard at the same time. In the interest of justice I shall allow the application and order that the case as between the third Party and the Defendants be heard at the same time as that between Plaintiffs and defendants. The Third Party are to file their defence within 14 days from the date herein and Discoveries if any to be done 15 days thereafter. The costs of the application shall in any event be to the Plaintiffs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2001.
P.M. TUTUI
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE