[2008] KEHC 2808 (KLR)
The court held that since directions had already been given for the originating summons to be heard by viva voce evidence, and those directions had not been reviewed or set aside, the proper course was to proceed to substantive hearing. The issues raised by the defendant/applicant regarding the plaintiff's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2808 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joyce Gathoni Kiarie; Defendant: Naomi Kaboro Mungai; Third Party: Samuel Mwika Kiarie
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1357 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Pleadings
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- BP Kubo
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Adverse Possession, Originating Summons, Directions of Court
- 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
Joyce Gathoni Kiarie
Plaintiff
Naomi Kaboro Mungai
Defendant
Samuel Mwika Kiarie
Third Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Pleadings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's pleadings should be struck out for being fatally defective.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to invoke adverse possession given the alleged lack of peaceful occupation.
- 3 Whether the directions previously given by the court preclude the defendant from raising the current objections without seeking review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since directions had already been given for the originating summons to be heard by viva voce evidence, and those directions had not been reviewed or set aside, the proper course was to proceed to substantive hearing. The issues raised by the defendant/applicant regarding the plaintiff's occupation and entitlement to adverse possession are factual matters to be determined at trial. The application to strike out the pleadings was therefore an unwarranted interruption of the proceedings and was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The chamber summons application dated 06.11.07 is dismissed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 1357 of 2004 (OS)
JOYCE GATHONI KIARIE...................................PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
NAOMI KABORO MUNGAI................................DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
AND
SAMUEL MWIKA KIARIE............................THIRD PARTY/RESPONDENT
RULING
By chamber summons dated 06. 11. 07 stated to be brought under Order VI rule 13 (1) (b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap.21, the defendant/applicant applied for the following orders:-
1. That the plaintiff’s pleadings be struck out with costs to the defendant.
2. That the costs of this application be provided for.
The grounds upon which the application is based are:-
a) That the pleadings are fatally defective as drawn, taken out and filed.
b) That the plaintiff has not had peaceable occupation of the subject land as expressed in her pleadings.
c) That the plaintiff’s interest in the suit land is tainted with that of a purchaser, but which position has expressly been negated by the third party.
d) That in view of the above, the same are an abuse of process for being grossly in conflict with the appropriate provisions of law.
e) That in the interests of justice this honourable court ought to find in favour of the plaintiff (sic)
The application is supported by the affidavit of Njugi B.
Gachogu, Advocate sworn on 06. 11. 07.
At the hearing of the application, the defendant/applicant was represented by learned counsel, Mr C.K. Maina while the plaintiff/respondent was represented by learned counsel, Mr P.M. Wamae.
The defendant’s/applicant’s case is essentially that the plaintiff/respondent cannot invoke the process of adverse possession because she has not been enjoying peaceful and uninterrupted occupation of the suit premises.
On the other hand, the plaintiff’s/respondent’s counsel opposed the application. He relied on grounds of opposition dated 21. 11. 07. The plaintiff’s/respondent’s position is essentially that the suit herein was brought by way of originating summons dated 14. 12. 04; that pursuant to Order XXXVI rule 8A of the Civil Procedure Rules, the parties appeared before Njagi, J on 27. 03. 06 and by consent took directions that the originating summons be heard by way of viva voce evidence; that by virtue of the parties’ participation in the taking of the above directions, they should be deemed to have admitted that the originating summons was properly on record; and that if the defendant/applicant subsequently wished to depart from the directions given, she should have applied for review of the order for directions, which she did not do.
I have given due consideration to the application and opposition thereto.
The court record shows that on 27. 03. 06 the parties appeared before Njagi, J who indeed gave directions as indicated by plaintiff’s/respondent’s counsel above. The Judge also dispensed with the joinder of the interested party. The directions given on 27. 03. 06 on the mode of proceeding with this matter are still in place and I am of the view that as long as the said orders subsist, the next step in this matter is for substantive hearing of the originating summons to be embarked upon. Whether or not the plaintiff has had peaceful occupation of the suit land and for the requisite period is a matter of evidence for the trial. In the premise, the chamber summons application dated 06. 11. 07 constitutes an unwarranted interruption and the same is hereby dismissed.
Costs shall be in the cause.
Orders accordingly.
Delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of April, 2008.
B.P. KUBO
JUDGE