[2007] KEHC 3009 (KLR)
The court held that the omission of the date in the affidavit was a fatal defect under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act. The court found that it had no discretion to admit an undated affidavit, as the rules of procedure cannot override a mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently, the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3009 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Duncan Mwangovya; Defendant: Meena Bhagwandas Patel
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 196 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Affidavit in Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application struck out for want of a valid supporting affidavit; costs to the respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Affidavit Formal Requirements, Preliminary Objection, Striking Out Affidavit, Statutory Compliance
- 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
Duncan Mwangovya
Plaintiff
Meena Bhagwandas Patel
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Affidavit in Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an affidavit in support of a summons that is not dated is fatally defective under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act.
- 2 Whether the court has discretion under Order XVIII rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules to admit an undated affidavit.
- 3 Whether the interlocutory summons can stand without a valid supporting affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the omission of the date in the affidavit was a fatal defect under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act. The court found that it had no discretion to admit an undated affidavit, as the rules of procedure cannot override a mandatory statutory requirement. Consequently, the affidavit was struck out, and since the summons was unsupported by a valid affidavit, it was rendered incompetent and was also struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application struck out for want of a valid supporting affidavit; costs to the respondent.
Orders
- The affidavit of Duncan Mwangovya sworn on an unspecified date is struck out with costs to the respondent.
- The summons dated 20.9.2005 is struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
Civil Suit 196 of 2005
DUNCAN MWANGOVYA ………………………….……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MEENA BHANGWANDAS PATEL ……...………….DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
In a summons dated 20th September 2005, Duncan Mwangovya, the plaintiff herein, applied for various interlocutory orders against Meena Bhagwandas Patel, the defendant herein in respect of Plot No. 3240/I/M.N. However when the application came up for interpartes hearing, the plaintiff only urged for prayers 3 and 5 namely:
3. An order for the release of the applicant’s Motor vehicle
Registration No. KAR 650F Subaru Legacy Saloon by Veteran Auctioneers on 15. 9.2005 forthwith and unconditionally.
5. Costs of the application.
The summons is opposed by the defendant who filed the replying affidavit of Meena Bhagwandas Patel sworn on 4th October 2005.
The history behind this case is that sometimes in the year 2004 the defendant purchase plots numbers 3239/I/M.N and 3240/i/M.N. from one James Kanyotu. At the time of purchase, Duncan Mwangovya (Plaintiff), was a sitting tenant of James Kanyotu. The transaction was made open to the plaintiff through a letter written by the Defendant’s advocate. The plaintiff was also given notice increasing the monthly rent from Kshs.27,500 to Kshs.60,000/-. It would appear the plaintiff did not agree with the terms of the new landlord although he remained in occupation. Shortly he fell into arrears. The new landlord then distressed rent for in the sum of Kshs.159,000. The amount is stated in a proclamation of 22/1/2005. In the thick of things the plaintiff’s motor vehicle Reg. No. KAR 650F Subaru Legacy was seized by Mwara Investments Ltd. These events prompted the plaintiff to file this suit hence the summons now before court.
When the summons came up for interpartes hearing, Mr. Omollo learned advocate for the defendant raised a preliminary point and urged this court to strike out the affidavit of Duncan Mwangovya which was filed in support of the summons. It is pointed out that the affidavit is in breach of Section 5. of the oaths and Statutory Declarations Act in that it is not dated. This defect is admitted to exist by Mr. Kinyanjui learned plaintiff’s counsel. He however urged this court to excuse the defect and admit the affidavit. He claimed that the same was an inadvertent mistake committed by his office.
I have carefully considered these submissions. I know order XVIII rule 7 of the civil procedure rules gives this court the discretion to accept an affidavit if the defect pointed out relates to misdescription of parties, title or any other irregularity in form. The Act, i.e. the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act is clear in Mandatory terms in Section 5 that the affidavit must state the date the oath or affidavit was taken or made. Parliament did not give this court the discretion to ignore that provision. In my view order XVIII rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not envisage such a defect because the rules cannot override a statutory provision. In the end I find the preliminary point well founded. It is upheld with the result that the affidavit of Duncan Mwangovya sworn on an unspecified date is ordered struck out with costs to the respondent. This leaves the summons dated 20. 9.2005 without a foundation under order L rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently it stands incompetent hence it is hereby ordered struck out with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 21st Day of February 2007.
J.K. SERGON
J U D G E
In open court in the absence of the parties with notice.