[2009] KEHC 822 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 822 (KLR)

The court found that, at the time of filing the suit, Andrew Githinji Mwihuri was authorized to act on behalf of Githambo General Contractors, as the change of particulars indicating Joe Nderitu Kiongo as proprietor was effected only after the suit commenced. The court inferred collusion between Kiongo and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 822 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Githambo General Contractors; Defendant: Kay Construction Co. Ltd.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 135 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Authority to Sue, Business Names, Breach of Contract
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Striking Out Pleadings Authority to Sue Business Names Breach of Contract

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

Githambo General Contractors

Plaintiff

Kay Construction Co. Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint

  1. 1 Whether Andrew Githinji Mwihuri was authorised to file the suit and swear the verifying affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff firm.
  2. 2 Whether the plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action given the alleged lack of authority and the claim for general damages in a contract dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, at the time of filing the suit, Andrew Githinji Mwihuri was authorized to act on behalf of Githambo General Contractors, as the change of particulars indicating Joe Nderitu Kiongo as proprietor was effected only after the suit commenced. The court inferred collusion between Kiongo and the defendant to frustrate the plaintiff firm and found Kiongo's evidence not credible. The inclusion of a claim for general damages in a contract dispute was acknowledged as a defect, but not fatal, as it could be remedied by amendment. Consequently, the application to strike out the plaint was dismissed, and the suit was allowed to proceed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The defendant's application to strike out the plaint is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff.