[1998] KEHC 231 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had established its claim for the sum due for goods supplied, supported by documentary evidence including delivery notes, invoices, and dishonoured cheques. The defendants' assertion of overpayment was unsupported by a counterclaim and the account reconciliation provided did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1998] KEHC 231 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kabansora Limited; Defendant: Jane David Kangenda; Defendant: Unknown (2nd Defendant)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 2220 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Summary Judgment Application
- Outcome
- judgment for the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Goods Supplied, Dishonoured Cheques, Account Reconciliation
- 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
Kabansora Limited
Plaintiff
Jane David Kangenda
Defendant
Unknown (2nd Defendant)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Summary Judgment Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for the sum claimed for goods supplied.
- 2 Whether the defendants have raised any triable issues or a defence on merit to warrant a full trial.
- 3 Whether the dishonoured cheques and alleged overpayment constitute a valid defence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had established its claim for the sum due for goods supplied, supported by documentary evidence including delivery notes, invoices, and dishonoured cheques. The defendants' assertion of overpayment was unsupported by a counterclaim and the account reconciliation provided did not tally with the particulars supplied by the plaintiff. The court determined that the defence raised was intended to delay payment and did not disclose any triable issues. Consequently, the court held that this was a clear case for summary judgment under Order 35 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and entered judgment for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint, with costs and...
Court Disposition
judgment for the plaintiff
Orders
- Judgment is entered against the defendants jointly and severally as prayed in the plaint.
- The plaintiff shall have costs and interest as prayed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 2220 OF 1996
KABANSORA LIMITED......................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JANE DAVID KANGENDA & ANOTHER..........................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for Kshs. 1. 8 million being the sum due and owing in respect of goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendants particulars of which were said to be within the defendants’ knowledge.
The claim was denied in a statement of defence filed by the 1st defendant on 30th October, 1996.
The application before me is for summary judgment under order 35 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is supported by an affidavit of Mitesh patel who is said to be the Managing Director of the plaintiff.
The first defendant has filed grounds of objection and a replying affidavit. The claim is denied and the application for summary judgement resisted.
In an application of this nature the court has to be satisfied that there is not a defence on merit or as commonly put, no triable issues that call for a full trial. The provisions of order 35 Rule 1 are to be invoked in clear and obvious cases only. “In any given case it is the duty of the court to examine with minute care the documents and facts laid before it.... the merits of the issues are investigated to decide whether leave to defend should be granted.....” (See Gupta -v- Continental Builders Ltd (1978) K.L.R.83).
The plaintiff has provided copies of delivery notes with accompanying invoices showing the total amount claimed. There are also copies of some cheques issued by both defendants in favour of the plaintiff which were dishonoured on presentation.
When the first defendant requested for particulars of the claim from the plaintiff the same were given. There was no rejoinder to the said particulars. As regards the dishonoured cheques, it is the defendant’s case that they were for goods which were not delivered hence the reason for stopping the same. It is also alleged that the defendants over-paid the plaintiff by Kshs. 192,400/- . To support that contention a copy of accounts prepared by Ndetei and Associates has been annexed to the affidavit of the first defendant.
The statement of accounts is said to have reconciled the account and came up with excess payment by the defendants. I note however that the invoice numbers reflected in the said statement does not tally with the answer to the request for particulars. further as I have noted, there was no rejoinder to the said answer. above all, the defendants have not raised any counterclaim against the plaintiff for the alleged over payment of Kshs. 192,400/-.
About the dishonoured cheques, the same were not stopped as alleged in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the first defendant. The remarks endorsed thereon are, “ Refer to Drawer” and “No arrangements”.
At the end of it all I believe the statement of defence was filed to delay the payment due to the plaintiff for goods sold and delivered to the defendants. I see no triable issues that call for a full hearing.
Accordingly judgment is hereby entered against the defendants jointly and severally as prayed in the plaint plus costs and interest. The plaintiff shall also have the costs of this application. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of March, 1998.
A. MBOGHOLI MSAGHA
JUDGE