[2004] KEHC 690 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 690 (KLR)

The court found that there is no statutory or procedural requirement mandating that the jurat and attestation be on the same page as the main body of the affidavit. The explanation provided for the separation due to computer formatting was deemed satisfactory. Regarding the alleged late filing, the judge clarified...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 690 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: James Ogata Nyantenga; Respondent: Keroka Town Council; Interested Party: Town Clerk Keroka Town Council
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 66 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
K Bauni
Legal Topics
Affidavit Formal Requirements, Preliminary Objection, Contempt Proceedings, Filing Timelines
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Affidavit Formal Requirements Preliminary Objection Contempt Proceedings Filing Timelines

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Ogata Nyantenga

Applicant

Keroka Town Council

Respondent

Town Clerk Keroka Town Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether an affidavit is defective if the jurat appears on a separate page from the main body of the affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the application for contempt was filed out of time contrary to the court's order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there is no statutory or procedural requirement mandating that the jurat and attestation be on the same page as the main body of the affidavit. The explanation provided for the separation due to computer formatting was deemed satisfactory. Regarding the alleged late filing, the judge clarified that the record erroneously reflected a 2-day period when in fact 21 days had been granted, and the record was amended accordingly. Therefore, the preliminary objection lacked merit on both grounds and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed.
  • The suit is dismissed.