[2007] KEHC 440 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's application was fundamentally defective because it relied on non-existent or improperly cited legal provisions. The only valid provision cited, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, merely preserves the court's inherent powers and does not independently empower the applicant to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 440 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joginder Singh t/a Ahuja International; Defendant: Enterprise Machine Tools Limit
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1364 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs to respondent
- Judges
- CJ Kendagor
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Inherent Jurisdiction, Defective Application
- 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
Joginder Singh t/a Ahuja International
Plaintiff
Enterprise Machine Tools Limit
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's application to strike out the defendant's defence and enter judgment is properly grounded in law.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant the prayers sought based on the legal provisions cited by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's application was fundamentally defective because it relied on non-existent or improperly cited legal provisions. The only valid provision cited, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, merely preserves the court's inherent powers and does not independently empower the applicant to bring the application. The reference to 'U/O 13(1)(a) and (b)' was unclear and not decipherable, and the court could not assume the applicant's intended legal basis. Since the powers to grant the prayers sought had not been properly invoked and the prerequisites for such orders had not been satisfied, the application was struck out in its entirety with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs to respondent
Orders
- The application dated 24th November, 2003 is struck out with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE 1364 OF 2000
JOGINDER SINGH
t/a AHUJA INTERNATIONAL…………………..…………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ENTERPRISE MACHINE TOOLS LIMIT………......…….DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The application before the court has been brought by the Plaintiff. It is expressed to have been brought under U/O 13(1) (a) and (b) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the law.
The application seeks two prayers:-
(1)That the Honourable Court does strike off the Defendant’s defence herein as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous and vexatious;
(2)That the Honourable Court does, on granting prayer (1) above, subsequently enter judgment for the Plaintiff as prayed for in the Plaint, that is:-
(a)By adopting and passing as against the Defendant the sum as decreed in the High Court Case No. 434/96 as passed in the High Court Sitting in Jalandhar India for US$47,166/= with damages, costs interest and future interest OR
(b) By ordering judgment as against the Defendant for the sum of US$47,166/= with interest at 25% from the 30th of March, 1995, until interest in full, or such interest as the honourable court shall deem fit and just in the circumstances.
I find the application bad in law and incurably defective as, a part from Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act which preserves the inherent powers of the court but does not by itself empower an applicant to bring any application before the court, the other provision of the law invoked is very strange. I find it difficult to decipher what the Applicant meant by U/O 13 (1) (a) and (b). The powers of the court to grant the prayers sought have not properly been invoked. See AFC –vs- RONO (2003) KLR 113.
Looking at prayer 1 and 2, the rules under which each prayer can be granted is distinct. The court cannot assume what the Applicant meant by the rule invoked. There are prerequisites to be met before the court can grant an application depending on the rule cited in support of the application. The Applicant has to satisfy the court that the requirements of the law invoked have been met before the prayers can be considered. As the Applicant before the court relies on non existent legal provisions, the Applicant cannot be said to merit the prayers sought.
Due to the defect in the application noted, I will strike out the entire application dated 24th November, 2003 with costs to the Respondent.
Dated at Nairobi this 8th day of June, 2007.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE
Read, signed and delivered in presence of :-
Ndirangu holding brief for Mutua for Applicant.
N/A for Respondent.
LESIIT, J.
JUDGE