[2005] KEHC 557 (KLR)
The court found that at the time the plaint was filed, the plaintiff's advocate did not hold a current Practicing Certificate as required by Section 9 of the Advocates Act. The subsequent acquisition of a certificate did not cure the defect. As a result, the plaint was incompetent, having been signed and filed by an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 557 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ibnul Hassan Rizvi; Defendant: Dineshchandra Gordhansass Bhatessa; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 812 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit struck out with costs to the defendants
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Advocate Practicing Certificate, Preliminary Objection, Competence of Pleadings
- 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
Ibnul Hassan Rizvi
Plaintiff
Dineshchandra Gordhansass Bhatessa
Defendant
Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether pleadings filed by an advocate without a current Practicing Certificate are fatally incompetent and should be struck out.
- 2 Whether the suit is incompetent for being filed by an unqualified person under Section 9 of the Advocates Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that at the time the plaint was filed, the plaintiff's advocate did not hold a current Practicing Certificate as required by Section 9 of the Advocates Act. The subsequent acquisition of a certificate did not cure the defect. As a result, the plaint was incompetent, having been signed and filed by an unqualified person. The court relied on statutory requirements and binding precedent to conclude that the suit must be struck out with costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
suit struck out with costs to the defendants
Orders
- The plaint is struck out as incompetent.
- Costs awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
Civil Case 812 of 2005
IBNUL HASSAN RIZVI………………………….......….…….PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
DINESHCHANDRA GORDHANSASS
BHATESSA……………………………………….1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD……….......2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
The plaintiff filed this suit by way of a plaint against the defendants jointly and severally seeking:-
(a) An injunction to restrain the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from selling transferring, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with all that property known as LR NO. 300/593.
(b) A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of all the property known as LR NO.330/593.
(c) Costs of the suit.
The plaint was signed by S.O. Owino & Associates who is the counsel on record for the plaintiff on 30th June 2005.
The defendant on being served with the summons filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection notifying the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant shall raise the following preliminary objection:
(1) The plaint and subsequent pleadings should be struck out with costs as the plaintiff’s advocate does not hold a current Practicing Certificate for the year 2005.
(2) The pleadings filed herein are fatally incompetent and must be struck out.
Mr. Gichuhi for the defendant submitted that the plaint was filed by a firm of S. Owino who did not have a current Practicing Certificate at the time and urged the court to strike out the plaint. He referred the court to the case of OBURA VS. KOOME [2000] LLR 4143 (CAK) in which the Court of appeal struck out the Memorandum of Appeal for being incompetent having been signed by an advocate who did not have a current Practicing Certificate.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Owino appeared in person to oppose the Preliminary Objection. But at this time he displaced a Practicing Certificate which he obtained on 20th July 2005. He submitted that a Preliminary Objection does not lie in law and that he was not accorded an opportunity to file a replying affidavit to counter the list of advocates who hold current Practicing Certificate in which his name is omitted.
The Preliminary Objection is founded on the ground that the suit is incompetent having been filed by an unqualified person. Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit.
Section 9 of the Advocates Act (Cap 16) provides:
Subject to this Act no person shall be qualified to act as an advocate unless
(a) He has been admitted as an advocate and
(b) His name is for the time being on the roll and
(c) He has in force a Practicing Certificate.
Although Mr. S.O. Owino who is the advocate on record for the plaintiff has a Practicing Certificate dated 20th July 2005, it is not in dispute that at the time he filed this suit 30th June 2005 he did not hold a Practicing Certificate in breach of Section 9 subsection © of the Advocates Act.
In these circumstances the plaint is incompetent having been signed by an advocate who was not entitled to appear in court.
Accordingly the suit is struck out with costs to the defendant.
Dated this 21st day of September 2005.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE