[2000] KEHC 384 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 384 (KLR)

The court found that the Memorandum of Appearance and Defence filed by the defendant were invalid because the person who signed them did not identify themselves by name or office held in the company, contrary to the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. As such, the documents were not in conformity with the law and were invalid. Furthermore, the defence raised was found to be equivocal and inconsistent with the defendant's previous correspondence, which had agreed to settle the claim. The defendant did not oppose the application, as no replying affidavit was filed nor was there attendance at the hearing. The court concluded that there was no competent defence on record, and the...

Citation
[2000] KEHC 384 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Benjamin Kiptoo; Defendant: Stallon Insurance Co Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 March 2000
Case Number
? 1156 of ??
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment
Outcome
application allowed; defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiff as prayed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Corporate Litigation, Insurance Liability, Third Party Risks
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Striking Out Pleadings Corporate Litigation Insurance Liability Third Party Risks

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Kiptoo

Plaintiff

Stallon Insurance Co Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Memorandum of Appearance and Defence filed by the defendant corporation are valid under the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the Defence raises a triable issue or is frivolous and an abuse of court process.
  3. 3 Whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Memorandum of Appearance and Defence filed by the defendant were invalid because the person who signed them did not identify themselves by name or office held in the company, contrary to the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. As such, the documents were not in conformity with the law and were invalid. Furthermore, the defence raised was found to be equivocal and inconsistent with the defendant's previous correspondence, which had agreed to settle the claim. The defendant did not oppose the application, as no replying affidavit was filed nor was there attendance at the hearing. The court concluded that there was no competent defence on record, and the...

Court Disposition

application allowed; defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiff as prayed

Orders

  • The defence filed by the defendant is struck out.
  • Judgment is entered for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint dated 18.7.2000.