[2005] KEHC 646 (KLR)
The court held that the use of the word 'advised' in an affidavit, when the deponent states they are advised by their advocate and believe it to be true, falls within the contemplation of 'information and belief' as provided under Order 18 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that distinguishing...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 646 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kaguanjai Builders Ltd and another; Defendant: Matic Contractors Ltd; Defendant: Stephen Mburu Kinyanjui; Defendant: Milton Njoroge
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 214 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Affidavit
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Affidavit Evidence, Preliminary Objection, Order 18 Rule 3, Order 18 Rule 6, Information and Belief, Striking Out Affidavit Paragraphs
- 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
Kaguanjai Builders Ltd and another
Plaintiff
Matic Contractors Ltd
Defendant
Stephen Mburu Kinyanjui
Defendant
Milton Njoroge
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether paragraph 10 of the plaintiff's replying affidavit should be struck out for being based on legal advice rather than facts within the deponent's knowledge.
- 2 Whether the use of the word 'advised' in an affidavit falls within the meaning of 'information and belief' under Order 18 Rule 3(1).
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the use of the word 'advised' in an affidavit, when the deponent states they are advised by their advocate and believe it to be true, falls within the contemplation of 'information and belief' as provided under Order 18 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court found that distinguishing between 'advice' and 'information' is unnecessary and amounts to splitting hairs. Since the defendants did not demonstrate that the paragraph was scandalous, irrelevant, or oppressive as required under Order 18 Rule 6, the preliminary objection lacked merit. The objection was therefore dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The preliminary objection by the 1st and 2nd defendants is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI
Civil Case 214 of 2004
KAGUANJAI BUILDERS LTD AND ANOTHER…...……..........…...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MATIC CONTRACTORS LTD ……………………….……...1ST DEFENDANT
STEPHEN MBURU KINYANJUI ……………………………2ND DEFENDANT
MILTON NJOROGE ……………………………...…………..3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
There is on record an application filed on behalf of 1st and 2nd defendants dated 22nd September 2004. the plaintiff’s opposed that application by the replying affidavit sworn by Charles Kinyanjui Mwaura dated 19th November 2004.
The defendant counsel raised a preliminary objection to paragraph 10 of that replying affidavit in the following terms; that the said paragraph should be struck out; that the said paragraph is not based on matters of fact but matters based on advice of the deponent’s advocate; that consequently the matters thereof are not within the knowledge of the defendant; that by the use of the word ‘advised’, which was the advice of their counsel, it cannot be said to be evidence because advise can be wrong. Defence counsel said that the matters deposed in that paragraph ought to have been left to be submitted on by the plaintiff’s counsel. He further said that the averments in that paragraph cannot fall within the proviso Order 18 Rule 3 (1) because it did not fall within the definition of “statement of information and belief…..”. Counsel then concluded that he sought under Order 18 R. 6 that the said paragraph be struck out.
Plaintiff’s counsel responded to those submissions. he said that the replying affidavit, the subject of that paragraph, was in answer to the application, by the 1st and 2nd defendants, which raises points of law and fact. Plaintiff’s counsel pointed out to paragraph 3 and 4 of the affidavit in support of the application by 1st and 2nd defendant, where the deponent stated “That I am informed by my advocate on record which information I believe to be true”. That the paragraph 10 of the plaintiff’s affidavit, the paragraph the 1st and 2nd defendants raise an objection to, sought to answer matters which are stated in paragraph 3 and 4 aforestated. Counsel submitted that there is nothing in Order 18 Rule 3(1) which precluded an advocate to give information to his client. That further the defendant is relying on Order 18 R 6 to have paragraph 10 of the replying affidavit struck out is misconceived because counsel had not shown what is scandalous, oppressive or irrelevant therein. Counsel therefore sought dismissal of the objection.
The plaintiff in its replying affidavit, paragraph 10 stated; “That I am advised by our Advocate on record which I verily believe to be true….” The offence that the 1st and 2nd defendant find in that portion is that the deponent uses the word ‘advised’. Defence counsel argued that advise cannot be equated with information and belief. The pocket oxford dictionary defines the word advise as; “to recommend, to inform, to consult with”. That definition clearly shows that to try to distinguish the word information and advise is to indeed attempt to ‘split hairs’. I therefore find that the use of the word advise does fall within the contemplation of Order 18 Rule 3(1) and having so found the defendant’s preliminary objection fails and is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Dated and Delivered this 14th day of October 2005.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE