[2005] KEHC 374 (KLR)
The appellate court found that the issues raised by the appellant in its defence were not suitable for summary disposal and required serious consideration at trial. The trial court erred in striking out the defence as the matters pleaded could not be determined without a full hearing. The appeal was therefore...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 374 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Geminia Insurance Co. Ltd; Respondent: Kennedy Otieno Onyango
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 193 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out of Pleadings, Insurer Liability, Workmen Compensation Policy
- 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
Geminia Insurance Co. Ltd
Appellant
Kennedy Otieno Onyango
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's defence disclosed a reasonable cause of defence and should have been struck out.
- 2 Whether the appellant, as insurer, was liable to satisfy the decree against its insured in the circumstances pleaded.
- 3 Whether the trial court erred in striking out the defence and entering judgment summarily.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found that the issues raised by the appellant in its defence were not suitable for summary disposal and required serious consideration at trial. The trial court erred in striking out the defence as the matters pleaded could not be determined without a full hearing. The appeal was therefore allowed, the trial court's ruling set aside, the appellant's defence reinstated, and the matter remitted to the lower court for hearing before a different magistrate.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed.
- The ruling of the trial court is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Civil Appeal 193 of 2002
(An appeal from the Civil Case No. 841 of 2002 of the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Nakuru – S. MUKETI (MRS)
GEMINIA INSURANCE CO. LTD………………………………..….APPELLANT
VERSUS
KENNEDY OTIENO ONYANGO…………………………………RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
The respondent was the plaintiff in Nakuru RMCC No. 2302 of 1995 where he had filed suit against a company known as Lomolo (1962) Limited. The said company had been insured by the appellant herein in respect of injuries sustained by its employees in the course of their duties with it. On 1st July 1995 the respondent was involved in an industrial accident in the course of his employment with Limolo (1962) Ltd. He filed the aforesaid suit and was awarded general and special damages plus costs, all totaling to Kshs.96,860/-. The said judgment was by consent which was entered into between the respondent’s advocates and M/S Sheth & Wathigo Advocates who had been instructed to appear for Lomolo (1962) Ltd. by the insurance company, the appellant. The said defendant did not settle the decretal amount promptly and the respondent decided to file a suit against the appellant as the defendant’s insurer, Nakuru CMCC No. 841 of 2002 and sought a declaration that the appellant was bound to satisfy the decree in Nakuru RMCC No. 2302 of 1995. Alternatively, it prayed for judgment against the appellant in the sum of Kshs.96,680/- plus costs and interest.
The appellant filed a defence to the said suit and stated that the suit was bad in law as there was no contractual relationship between it and the respondent. It further stated that the respondent had no locus standi to institute the proceedings. The appellant further stated that it had repudiated the Workmen Compensation Policy it had issued to Lomolo (1962) Ltd. due to the insured’s breach of the policy conditions which included default in payment of the outstanding premiums on the policy and the appellant had notified the said insured that it was not going to settle the decretal sum on its behalf. The appellant therefore stated that it was not liable to satisfy the decree in Nakuru RMCC No. 2302 of 1995.
The respondent then filed an application under Order VI Rule 13(1)(a) and (d) seeking the striking out of the appellant’s defence as disclosing no reasonable cause of defence, that it was meant to delay fair conclusion of the matter and that it was an abuse of the court process. The appellant opposed the said application and filed grounds of opposition.
The trial court held that the respondent’s application was merited and struck out the appellant’s defence and entered judgment for the respondent.
The appellant was aggrieved by the said orders and preferred the present appeal.
Counsel for both parties made their respective submissions before me and I have taken the same into consideration. It is trite law that striking out pleadings is a draconian step which ought to be employed in the clearest of cases and particularly where it is evident that the pleadings are beyond redemption. Where a reasonable cause of defence is disclosed, it would be improper to strike out a defence, see D. T. DOBIE & COMPANY (KENYA) LTD VS MUCHINA [1982] KLR 1.
The issues that were raised by the appellant were not the kind of issues which could be disposed of in a summary manner, in my view they required very serious consideration. I will restrain myself from expressing any strong views on the matter because I am persuaded that the said suit should be remitted to the subordinate court to be heard before a different magistrate and such views may prejudice a fair trial. I therefore allow the appeal, set aside the ruling of the trial court, reinstate the appellant’s defence and order that Nakuru CMCC No. 841 of 2002 be remitted to the lower court for hearing. The costs of the appeal shall abide the outcome of the said case.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED at Nakurut this 9th day of December, 2005.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE
9/12/2005
Judgment delivered in open court in the presence of Mr. Kisila for the appellant and Mr. Musembi for the respondent.
D. MUSINGA
JUDGE
9/12/2005