[2013] KEHC 3624 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's plaint did not disclose any cause of action recognized under Kenyan law, as the dispute essentially arose from a matrimonial context and should have been pursued under the appropriate matrimonial property legal framework. The attempt to frame the matter as unjust enrichment was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3624 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Andrew Kabaila; Defendant: Carol Bahati Kahindi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 19 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out Application
- Outcome
- plaint struck out with costs to the defendant
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Cause of Action, Striking Out Pleadings, Matrimonial Property Disputes
- 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
Andrew Kabaila
Plaintiff
Carol Bahati Kahindi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/strike Out Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action recognized under Kenyan law.
- 2 Whether the dispute should be addressed under matrimonial property procedures rather than as a civil suit for unjust enrichment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's plaint did not disclose any cause of action recognized under Kenyan law, as the dispute essentially arose from a matrimonial context and should have been pursued under the appropriate matrimonial property legal framework. The attempt to frame the matter as unjust enrichment was insufficient to establish a valid cause of action in a civil suit. The court relied on precedent and statutory requirements for pleadings, concluding that the plaint was fatally defective and warranted being struck out with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
plaint struck out with costs to the defendant
Orders
- The plaint is struck out.
- The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT MALINDI
HCCC NO. 19 OF 2009
ANDREW KABAILA …...............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CAROL BAHATI KAHINDI …....................DEFENDANT
RULING
As framed, the plaintiff's plaint does not seem to disclose any cause of action known to Kenyan law. When the counsel for the plaintiff was asked to submit on the issue he stated that the case is based on “unjust enrichment” while admitting that this matter really emanates from a matrimonial dispute between the parties. Mr. Shujaa for the Defendant correctly argued that there is a specific procedure for dealing with matrimonial disputes or distribution of property acquired during a marriage.
In addition, he stated that no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint. To this end he referred to the case of J. K. vs A.K. HCCC NO. 1433 of 1999 whose facts are similar to the present case. In that case, the plaint was struck out for similar reasons, among others. I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has demonstrated any salvageable cause of action known to Kenyan law in respect of this suit and I order the plaint struck out with costs.
Delivered and signed at Malindi this 3rd day of April, 2013 in the presence of Mr. Shujaa for defendant, plaintiff absent.
Court clerk - Evans
C. W. Meoli
JUDGE
3th April, 2013