[2005] KEHC 2843 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 2843 (KLR)

The court held that the Defence raised substantive issues—namely, the truth of the words complained of and whether the publication was privileged—which are matters that can only be determined at the hearing upon presentation of evidence. As such, the threshold for striking out a pleading was not met, since the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 2843 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Josephat R. Amwayi; Respondent: Kenya Pipeline Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 1289 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Striking Out Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Defamation, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Striking Out Pleadings Defamation Abuse of Process

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josephat R. Amwayi

Applicant

Kenya Pipeline Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Striking Out Application

  1. 1 Whether the Defence should be struck out as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process.
  2. 2 Whether the Defence raises triable issues that require determination at trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Defence raised substantive issues—namely, the truth of the words complained of and whether the publication was privileged—which are matters that can only be determined at the hearing upon presentation of evidence. As such, the threshold for striking out a pleading was not met, since the Defence was not plainly scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious on its face. The application to strike out the Defence was therefore dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application to strike out the Defence is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.