[2021] KEHC 12553 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 12553 (KLR)

The court found that both parties, through their advocates, failed in their responsibility to each other and to the court by not ensuring the expeditious, fair, and proportionate conduct of litigation, particularly in the exchange of documents necessary for the preparation of the case. The court declined to waste...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 12553 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bank of Africa Limited; Defendant: Morganite Limited; Defendant: Bartonjo Chesaina; Defendant: Elisha Kiprop Chirchir; Defendant: Kipruto Chirchir
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E053 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications to Strike Out Plaint and Defence
Outcome
Both applications to strike out the Plaint and Defence are dismissed. Directions issued for exchange of documents and further case management.
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Exchange of Documents, Overriding Objective, Case Management
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Striking Out Pleadings Exchange of Documents Overriding Objective Case Management

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of Africa Limited

Plaintiff

Morganite Limited

Defendant

Bartonjo Chesaina

Defendant

Elisha Kiprop Chirchir

Defendant

Kipruto Chirchir

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications to Strike Out Plaint and Defence

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's Defence should be struck out for failure to provide documents to the Defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' Plaint should be struck out as sought by the Defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the parties and their advocates have complied with their obligations to assist the court in furthering the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties, through their advocates, failed in their responsibility to each other and to the court by not ensuring the expeditious, fair, and proportionate conduct of litigation, particularly in the exchange of documents necessary for the preparation of the case. The court declined to waste judicial time resolving disputes that should have been resolved by counsel and dismissed both the Plaintiff's application to strike out the Defence and the Defendants' application to strike out the Plaint. The court issued specific directions to facilitate the exchange of documents, amendment of pleadings, and agreement on issues for trial, warning that failure to comply would...

Court Disposition

Both applications to strike out the Plaint and Defence are dismissed. Directions issued for exchange of documents and further case management.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff shall serve upon the Defendants its List and Bundle of Documents within 14 days, accompanied by an affidavit of disclosure.
  • The Defendants are granted leave to amend their Statement of Defence and serve their List and Bundle of Documents within 14 days of service, accompanied by an affidavit of disclosure.