[2013] KEHC 59 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 59 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff was a duly registered entity at the time the suit was filed in September 2009. The subsequent deregistration in December 2010 did not retroactively invalidate the suit. The plaintiff had taken steps to regularise its status by applying for re-registration and paying the requisite penalties and fees, as evidenced by correspondence from the NGO Coordination Board. The court held that the lack of registration was a remediable defect and did not render the plaintiff non-existent for the purposes of the suit. Applying the principle from D.T Dobie & Company Ltd v Muchina & Another, the court determined that the suit was not so hopeless or incurable as to...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 59 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Programmes for Sustainable Development; Defendant: CFC Stanbic Bank
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Case Number
Civil Case 682 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JB Havelock
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Legal Capacity of Parties, Non Governmental Organisation Registration
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Striking Out Pleadings Legal Capacity of Parties Non Governmental Organisation Registration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Programmes for Sustainable Development

Applicant

CFC Stanbic Bank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be struck out on the ground that the plaintiff was deregistered and thus lacked legal capacity to sue.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's failure to disclose its deregistration amounted to material non-disclosure justifying striking out the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's efforts to seek re-registration and compliance with statutory requirements remedied any defect in its legal standing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was a duly registered entity at the time the suit was filed in September 2009. The subsequent deregistration in December 2010 did not retroactively invalidate the suit. The plaintiff had taken steps to regularise its status by applying for re-registration and paying the requisite penalties and fees, as evidenced by correspondence from the NGO Coordination Board. The court held that the lack of registration was a remediable defect and did not render the plaintiff non-existent for the purposes of the suit. Applying the principle from D.T Dobie & Company Ltd v Muchina & Another, the court determined that the suit was not so hopeless or incurable as to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The defendant's Notice of Motion dated 22 April 2013 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.