[2004] KEHC 317 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant failed to comply with a court order requiring delivery of particulars of the defence within a specified period. The defendant's subsequent attempt to provide answers was inadequate and demonstrated a lack of a genuine defence to the plaintiffs' claim. The defendant did not appear...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 317 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jeremiah Kimigho Mwakio; Plaintiff: Patrick Mulisho; Plaintiff: Mohamed Godhana; Plaintiff: Amos Amitai; Defendant: Tana and Athi Rivers Developments Authority
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 172 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
- Outcome
- Application allowed; defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Failure to Supply Particulars, Default Judgment, Abuse of Process
- 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
Jeremiah Kimigho Mwakio
Plaintiff
Patrick Mulisho
Plaintiff
Mohamed Godhana
Plaintiff
Amos Amitai
Plaintiff
Tana and Athi Rivers Developments Authority
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defence should be struck out for failure to supply particulars as ordered by the court.
- 2 Whether the defendant's conduct amounts to an abuse of court process warranting judgment for the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant failed to comply with a court order requiring delivery of particulars of the defence within a specified period. The defendant's subsequent attempt to provide answers was inadequate and demonstrated a lack of a genuine defence to the plaintiffs' claim. The defendant did not appear at the hearing to contest the application, and the grounds of opposition filed were not pursued. The court concluded that the defence was without merit, constituted an abuse of process, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the defence struck out and judgment entered as prayed in the plaint.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; defence struck out; judgment entered for plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.
Orders
- The defence dated 20th May, 2002 is struck out.
- Judgment is entered for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL CASE 172 OF 2002
1. JEREMIAH KIMIGHO MWAKIO
2. PATRICK MULISHO
3. MOHAMED GODHANA
4. AMOS AMITAI …………………....................…………………………….. PLAINTIFFS
- V E R S U S –
TANA AND ATHI RIVERS DEVELOPMENTS AUTHORITY ……............… DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
By Chamber Summons brought under Section 3A & Order. VI rule 13 1(d) of Civil Procedure Act and Rules the applicant seeks orders to strike out the defense dated 20th May, 2002 with costs and judgment be entered for the plaintiffs as prayed in the plaint. The grounds set out on the application and supported by affidavit. What is shown is that the plaintiff served a request of particulars of the defence on 8. 10. 2002. The same were not supplied and on 7. 2.03 the plaintiffs filed an application to compel compliance which was heard on 7. 5.2003 and orders issued giving the defendant 21 days to deliver the particulars which order was served on 14. 5.03.
On 30. 7.2003 the defendant applied to extend time to deliver answers to particulars and attached a list purporting to be answers. The proposed answers clearly show that the defendant has no defense to the plaintiffs suit. Though served the defendant did not appear at the hearing of this application. I notice some grounds of opposition are filed challenging the validity of the suit and the supporting affidavit herein. However it is clear that the defendant does not believe in his grounds. He should have been the first to come to court to bring the suit to an early end. As it is he has employed delaying tactics as if the suit will disappear without any action on his part. I am convinced that the defence filed herein has no merit and it should be dismissed. I, therefore, allow application and grant orders prayed in the application and in the plaint. Costs to the plaintiff /applicant for this application and in the plaint.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2004.
J. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
19. 11. 04
Kilonzo holding brief for Kamundi.
Non appearance.
Ruling read in open court.