[2009] KEHC 799 (KLR)
The court held that the objection regarding the change of advocates was a technicality that should not defeat an otherwise valid application. The court emphasized that its primary purpose is to dispense justice and that technicalities should not obscure substantive justice. The court also found that the supporting...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 799 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gulam Hussein F. Gulam Hussein t/a Hussein Services Station; Plaintiff: Sea Angle Service Station Ltd; Defendant: Capital Cargo Services; Applicant: Imperial Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 144 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Supplementary Affidavit, Change of Advocates, Technical Objections, Affidavit Authority
- 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
Gulam Hussein F. Gulam Hussein t/a Hussein Services Station
Plaintiff
Sea Angle Service Station Ltd
Plaintiff
Capital Cargo Services
Defendant
Imperial Bank Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit is competent given the change of advocates.
- 2 Whether the supporting affidavit is valid without authority from the original deponent.
- 3 Whether allowing the supplementary affidavit would prejudice the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the objection regarding the change of advocates was a technicality that should not defeat an otherwise valid application. The court emphasized that its primary purpose is to dispense justice and that technicalities should not obscure substantive justice. The court also found that the supporting affidavit was properly sworn as the deponent had authority from the 1st Objector, and there was no requirement for authority from the original deponent. Further, the court found no merit in the argument that the supplementary affidavit would not address all issues or that the plaintiffs would suffer prejudice, as they retained the right to respond. Accordingly, the application...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The 1st Objector's application dated 28th May 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer (1).
- The supplementary affidavit shall be filed and served within seven (7) days from the date hereof.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
Civil Case 144 of 2008
GULAM HUSSEIN F. GULAM HUSSEIN
T/A HUSSEIN SERVICES STATION
SEA ANGLE SERVICE STATION LTD….……………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CAPITAL CARGO SERVICES…………………………..DEFENDANT
RULING
This is an application expressed to be brought under the provisions of Order L Rule 1 and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant has also invoked all other enabling provisions of the Law. The application is by the 1st Objector, Imperial Bank Limited, which seeks leave to file a supplementary affidavit to an earlier affidavit sworn on 28th November 2008 in support of its objection application dated 27th November 2008. The main reason for the application is that the deponent wishes to introduce annextures which had been inadvertedly omitted in the earlier affidavit which event will not occasion the respondent any prejudice but will instead serve the ends of justice.
There is an affidavit in support of the application sworn by one Kombo Masud, the 1st Objector’s Credit Officer Mombasa. The affidavit elaborates the said ground for the application. The respondent has opposed the application on the basis of a replying affidavit sworn by the 1st plaintiff Gulamhussein F. Gulamhussein. He believes that the application is defective and that a supplementary affidavit is permitted only where new issues have been raised in a replying affidavit. The plaintiffs contend that they will suffer if the order sought is granted.
At the hearing of the application, counsel for the plaintiffs in addition to replying on the said replying affidavit objected to the competence of the application contending that this application has been lodged by a firm of advocates which is not on record and further that the deponent of the supporting affidavit does not depose that the affidavit is sworn on the authority of Mary Mureithi who made the original supporting affidavit.
Since the plaintiffs’ objections challenge the competence of the application, I have decided to first consider the same. On 2nd June 2009, M/S Joseph Munyithya and Company Advocates filed a Notice of Change of Advocates. The 1st Objector had previously been represented by M/S Musinga Munyithya & Company Advocates and the new firm of advocates was taking over from them. This application was however lodged on 10th June 2009 by M/S Musinga Munyithya & Company Advocates from whom Joseph Munyithya & Company Advocates had taken over proceedings.
Technically, counsel for the plaintiffs is right that, having filed a Notice of Change of Advocates, subsequent documents should have been filed in the name of the new firm. However, can such a defect defeat an otherwise validly filed application? I think not. The objection raised in that regard is one of form and can be ignored and excused. The court as is often said exists for the primary purpose of dispensing justice to the parties. Sometimes, adherence to technicalities obscures the larger interests of justice. The objection is therefore overruled. With regard to the objection raised against the supporting affidavit, I am at a loss to appreciate the same. Kombo Masud clearly deposes that he was authorized to swear the affidavit by the 1st Objector. That in my view is the only authority he required to make the affidavit. As far as the supporting affidavit is concerned Masud did not require to be authorized by Mary Mureithi. The objection raised against the supporting affidavit is therefore also rejected.
With regard to the further objection that the intended supplementary affidavit will not address many issues and facts raised in the replying affidavit, I am not aware of any such limitation. The parties are their own master of their cases. They know when their pleadings are adequate and the Law allows them the right to perfect them to the best of their abilities unless in doing so the other side may be prejudiced beyond what may be remedied by costs. The plaintiffs have alleged that they are likely to suffer if the order sought is granted. They have not said how they are likely to suffer. They will after all, have the liberty to file a responding affidavit if they deem it necessary to do so. I detect no other prejudice or injury the plaintiffs will suffer if the order sought is allowed.
In the end, the 1st Objector’s application dated 28th May 2009 is allowed in terms of prayer (1) thereof. The supplementary affidavit be filed and served within seven (7) days from the date hereof. The Respondents are granted leave to file and serve further or responding affidavit/s within seven (7) days of service.
Costs of the application to be borne by the 1st Objector.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT MOMBASA THIS 7TH DAY OIF OCTOBER 2009.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence of:-
Kago holding brief for Munyithya for the 1st Objector.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
7TH OCTOBER 2009