[2016] KEELC 813 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st defendant's statement of defence did not consist of mere denials but raised triable issues, particularly regarding the process and approval of the share transfer, which is central to the plaintiffs' claim of fraud. Given that the cause of action is grounded on allegations of fraud, which...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 813 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Henry Belsoi; Plaintiff: James Chirchir; Defendant: Kenya Tourist Development Corporation; Defendant: Dr. Davy Koech; Defendant: Sololo Investments Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 04 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
- Judges
- GO Shikwe
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out of Pleadings, Fraudulent Share Transfer, Triable Issues, Costs Award
- 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
Henry Belsoi
Plaintiff
James Chirchir
Plaintiff
Kenya Tourist Development Corporation
Defendant
Dr. Davy Koech
Defendant
Sololo Investments Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant's defence should be struck out for failing to raise triable issues.
- 2 Whether the defence consists of mere denials without documentary support.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as prayed in the plaint based on the pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st defendant's statement of defence did not consist of mere denials but raised triable issues, particularly regarding the process and approval of the share transfer, which is central to the plaintiffs' claim of fraud. Given that the cause of action is grounded on allegations of fraud, which border on criminality, it is essential to afford each party a fair hearing as required by Article 50(1) of the Constitution. The court held that the matter should proceed to hearing to allow the parties to fully ventilate their cases. Consequently, the application to strike out the 1st defendant's defence was dismissed, but costs were awarded to the plaintiffs due to the 1st...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
Orders
- The application to strike out the 1st defendant's defence is dismissed.
- The 1st defendant shall pay the costs of this application to the plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KERICHO
CIVIL CASE NO.04 OF 2015
HENRY BELSOI ....................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF
JAMES CHIRCHIR ....................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF
VRS
KENYA TOURISTDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION ........................................1ST DEFENDANT
DR. DAVY KOECH ....................................... 2ND DEFENDANT
SOLOLO INVESTMENTS
LIMITED ......................................... 3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
The Notice of Motion application dated the 25th day of January 2016 and which is expressed to be brought under section 1A, 1B, 3, 3A 63 (4) Order 15 rule 1(b), (c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Act seeks the following orders:
(1) That the 1st defendant's defence 30/3/2013 be stuck out and judgment be entered for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.
(2) Costs to be borne by the 1st defendant.
The grounds are as follows:
(1) That the defendants' statement of defence does not raise any triable issues.
(2) There is no documentary evidence to back up the denials.
(3) That under Order 2 rule 15 of the Civil Procedures Rules 2010 a court can strike out pleadings that do not disclose a defence in law, that may prejudice embarrass or delay a fair trial.
On the 28th day of April, 2016, the 1st defendant was granted leave to file a replying affidavit within 14 days from that date and the matter was placed for hearing on 13/6/2016. On the 13th day of June, 2016, there was no representation for the 1st defendant and a perusal of the file shows that no replying affidavit had been filed to-date.
I have perused the plaint herein. Paragraph 6 of the plaint, there is an averment to the effect that the cause of action is based on the fraudulent sale and transfer of Ksh.12,000/=, 60% ordinary shares that the 1st defendant held in Tea Hotel Limited to the 2nd and 3rd defendants jointly and severally. Paragraph 11 of the plaint gives the particulars of fraud committed by the defendants.
I have similarly perused the 1st defendant's statement of defence. At paragraph 6 of the statement of defence it denies that the transfer of shares was through fraudulent means and contends that it sought approval from the government and that there was an authorization from the State Corporation Advisory Committee to sell shares to Yasangwan Holdings Limited. Further that valuation was obtained at a price of kshs.10,000,000/- for the 1st defendant's shares in Tea Hotel Limited which price was approved by State Corporation Advisory Committee and an offer made to Yasangwan Holdings Limited to execute its pre-empting right in purchase of the said shares but it did not take steps for the offer of the purchase of the said shares. Notice of 90 days was given to Yasangwan Holdings Limited within which to purchase the shares, failure to which they would be put to any other third party.
It is further the 1st defendant's defence that the transfer of shares from the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant was sanctioned by the Auditor General Corporations.
The 1st defendant's contentions and shares are not mere denials but they do raise to my mind triable issues. The cause of action in this case is grounded on fraud which borders all criminality and there is every need to afford each party a fair hearing in line with article 50 (1) of the Constitution which provides:-
“Every person has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court.”
In the present case, I find the 1st defendant's statement of defence does not consist of mere denials but raise triable issues which should go for hearing.
The application is dismissed. It is noted that the 1st defendant did not file a replying affidavit to the application and it was not represented in court. It is condemned to pay costs of this application to the plaintiff.
Ruling delivered, dated and signed in open court this 15th day of June 2016 in the presence of Koko Advocate for the applicant/plaintiff. No appearance for 1st defendant/respondent and Hillary court clerk.
M. MUYA
JUDGE
15/6/2016