[2013] KEHC 2092 (KLR)
The court found that the defences filed by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants, while possibly appearing weak, nonetheless raised triable issues such as the existence of a trust and the legal relationship between the parties. The court emphasized that striking out a defence is a drastic remedy to be used sparingly and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2092 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Justine Nekesa Nachami; Defendant: Francis K. Khaemba; Defendant: Keresenja Nasike Nyongesa; Defendant: Elizabeth Nasambu Nyongesa; Defendant: Lydia Namusia Nyongesa; Defendant: District Land Registrar
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 85 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out of Pleadings, Triable Issues, Land Title Cancellation, Defence of Trust
- 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
Justine Nekesa Nachami
Plaintiff
Francis K. Khaemba
Defendant
Keresenja Nasike Nyongesa
Defendant
Elizabeth Nasambu Nyongesa
Defendant
Lydia Namusia Nyongesa
Defendant
District Land Registrar
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defences filed by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants should be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the case set down for formal proof without a full hearing.
- 3 Whether the defences raise triable issues warranting a full trial.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defences filed by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants, while possibly appearing weak, nonetheless raised triable issues such as the existence of a trust and the legal relationship between the parties. The court emphasized that striking out a defence is a drastic remedy to be used sparingly and only in the clearest of cases. Since the defences raised issues that could only be determined at a full trial, the application to strike out the defences was not justified. The court therefore dismissed the application, allowing the defendants to participate in the hearing and awarded costs to the defendants.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to strike out the defences of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
ENVIRONMENT LAND CASE NO. 85 OF 2012
JUSTINE NEKESA NACHAMI …………………..........…..……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FRANCIS K. KHAEMBA…………………………………1ST DEFENDANT
KERESENJA NASIKE NYONGESA …................ 2ND DEFENDANT
ELIZABETH NASAMBU NYONGESA …................3RD DEFENDANT
LYDIA NAMUSIA NYONGESA …................... 4TH DEFENDANT
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR …............... 5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
This application brought under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeks to strike out the written statement of the 2nd, 3rd & 4th defendants and subsequently list the plaintiff's case for formal proof. The application is supported by the grounds on the face of it and the affidavit sworn by the applicant. Basically, the plaintiff claims the defence filed is general and contains mere demands.
The application is opposed by all the defendants. The 5th defendant represented by the Attorney General submitted they have filed their defence and hence the suit should proceed to full hearing. Ms. Mumu for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th defence submits their defence raises triable issues. She referred the court to paragraph 4 & 5 of the statement of defence.
She also submitted this being a land matter should be heard and determined on it's merit. They urged the court to dismiss the application.
I have perused the defence of 2nd, 3rd, & 4th defendants as filed. I have also perused the plaint. In the plaint, the applicant seeks to cancel title of 1st – 4th defendants as registered owners to the suit parcels of land. This is a serious matter that it would be unfair to close out the defendants from participating in the hearing however flimsy their defences appear.
In the defence, at paragraph 3 it raises the issue that suit is “incompetent and bad in law”. The defendant s have further raised a defence of “trust.”as it seems there exists a relationship between the plaintiff and part of the defendants as brought out in paragraph 4 and 5. This are issues which can only be determined during a full trial.
It is now a well settled principle of law that striking out should be exercised cautiously and in the clearest of cases. This position is embraced in the case of Kensan Insurance Brokers Ltd. Vs. Kenindia Ass. Co. Ltd, Civil Ap. No. 94 of 1997. In Mugambi Vs. Gatururu [1967] EA 196, it was held “where a defence has been filed, the court cannot ignore it in an application for summary judgment”.I therefore find there is no proper case made for the defences to be struck out. Accordingly I dismiss the application with costs to the defendants.
RULING DATED, SIGNED, DELIVERED AND READ in open court this 25th Day of September 2013.
A. OMOLLO
JUDGE.