[2020] KEELC 2384 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2384 (KLR)

The court found that the application to strike out paragraph 5 of the defence was made at an advanced stage of the proceedings, after the plaintiff had closed her case and the defence had commenced. The court determined that any issues regarding the vagueness or lack of particulars in the pleadings could be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2384 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Esther Kathambi Delfin; Defendant: M’Ibeere Karaine
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 67 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Defence Hearing in Progress; Application to Strike Out Part of Defence
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Particulars of Pleadings, Case Management, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Striking Out Pleadings Particulars of Pleadings Case Management Land Disputes

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esther Kathambi Delfin

Plaintiff

M’Ibeere Karaine

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Defence Hearing in Progress; Application to Strike Out Part of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 5 of the defence should be struck out for being vague and lacking particulars.
  2. 2 Whether the application to strike out should be entertained at this stage of proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application to strike out paragraph 5 of the defence was made at an advanced stage of the proceedings, after the plaintiff had closed her case and the defence had commenced. The court determined that any issues regarding the vagueness or lack of particulars in the pleadings could be adequately addressed through submissions at the conclusion of the trial. The court emphasized the importance of procedural regularity and the need to avoid piecemeal litigation, especially in a case that has been pending since 1998. Accordingly, the application to strike out was dismissed as inappropriate at this stage.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out paragraph 5 of the defence is dismissed.
  • Ruling delivered electronically in compliance with COVID-19 practice directions.