[2020] KEELC 2861 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2861 (KLR)

The court found that the defences of the 1st and 2nd defendants were not frivolous or vexatious, as they directly disputed the plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent transfer and asserted lawful acquisition and transfer of the suit property. The court held that the issues raised in the pleadings were substantive and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2861 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jumwa Tinga Kalu; Defendant: Morin Leah Akech Auma; Defendant: Eddah Dzame Albert; Defendant: Unknown 3rd Defendant; Defendant: Unknown 4th Defendant
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 256 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Striking Out / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Transfer of Land, Striking Out of Pleadings, Bona Fide Purchaser, Title Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Fraudulent Transfer of Land Striking Out of Pleadings Bona Fide Purchaser Title Disputes

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jumwa Tinga Kalu

Plaintiff

Morin Leah Akech Auma

Defendant

Eddah Dzame Albert

Defendant

Unknown 3rd Defendant

Defendant

Unknown 4th Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Striking Out / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the defences of the 1st and 2nd defendants are frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise liable to be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose triable issues that warrant a full hearing on the merits.
  3. 3 Whether the allegations of fraudulent transfer of land by the plaintiff raise issues that can only be determined at trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defences of the 1st and 2nd defendants were not frivolous or vexatious, as they directly disputed the plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent transfer and asserted lawful acquisition and transfer of the suit property. The court held that the issues raised in the pleadings were substantive and could only be resolved through a full hearing on the merits. Consequently, the application to strike out the defences did not meet the threshold under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as the defences disclosed triable issues that warranted ventilation at trial. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 13 February 2019 is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd defendants.