[2010] KEHC 675 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 675 (KLR)

The court found that the 2nd defendant failed to comply with the court order requiring discovery on oath of documents within the stipulated period. The 2nd defendant also failed to respond to the application or attend the hearing. Exercising its powers under Order X Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 675 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission; Defendant: Rebecca Njeri Karanja; Defendant: Phillip Njuguna; Defendant: Wilson Gacanja
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 13 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment
Outcome
Defence of the 2nd defendant struck out; judgment entered for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Discovery Non Compliance, Striking Out Defence, Default Judgment, Court Orders Enforcement
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Discovery Non Compliance Striking Out Defence Default Judgment Court Orders Enforcement

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission

Plaintiff

Rebecca Njeri Karanja

Defendant

Phillip Njuguna

Defendant

Wilson Gacanja

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant failed to comply with the court order for discovery on oath of documents.
  2. 2 Whether the defence filed by the 2nd defendant should be struck out for non-compliance with discovery orders.
  3. 3 Whether judgment should be entered in favour of the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd defendant failed to comply with the court order requiring discovery on oath of documents within the stipulated period. The 2nd defendant also failed to respond to the application or attend the hearing. Exercising its powers under Order X Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court determined that the appropriate sanction was to strike out the 2nd defendant's defence and enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.

Court Disposition

Defence of the 2nd defendant struck out; judgment entered for the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.

Orders

  • The defence filed by the 2nd defendant on 17th May, 2006 is struck out.
  • Judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff as prayed in the plaint.