[2000] KEHC 483 (KLR)
The court held that an application to strike out a plaint under Order VI rule 13(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and not on evidence. Since the grounds advanced by the third defendant—that the suit was extinguished under the Carriage by Air Act and that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 483 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Kodak Limited; Respondent: Lyndalian Airfreighters & Forwarders Ltd & 2 Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1221 of 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Application to Strike Out Plaint Under Order 6 Rule 13(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Reasonable Cause of Action, Carriage by Air, Notice of Loss, Limitation of Actions
- 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
Kodak Limited
Appellant
Lyndalian Airfreighters & Forwarders Ltd & 2 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Application to Strike Out Plaint Under Order 6 Rule 13(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the defendants.
- 2 Whether the suit is extinguished under the Carriage by Air Act for failure to give notice of loss within the statutory period.
- 3 Whether the application to strike out the plaint can be determined without recourse to evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that an application to strike out a plaint under Order VI rule 13(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules must be determined solely on the basis of the pleadings and not on evidence. Since the grounds advanced by the third defendant—that the suit was extinguished under the Carriage by Air Act and that the requisite notice of loss was not given—were disputed by the plaintiff, the resolution of these issues would require evidence. Therefore, the application was misconceived and could not be determined under the summary procedure provided by Order VI rule 13(1)(a). The application was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to strike out the plaint is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
civ case 1221 of 99
KODAK LIMITED……………………. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
LYNDALIAN AIRFREIGHTERS& FORWARDERS LTD & 2 OTHERS…………….…… RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT.
KODAK LIMITED V LYNDALIAN AIRFREIGHTERS
& FORWARDERS LTD & 2 OTHERS
December 1, 2000
T Mbaluto, Judge delivered the flowing judgment.
The third defendant has brought this application under Order 6 rule 13 (1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules and article 26 (2) and (4) of Carriage by Air Act to strike out the plaint filed herein on September 2, 1999 by the plaintiff. The application is based on three grounds, which are stated in the body of the application as follows: -
1. THAT the suit herein filed is extinguished under the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act [Act Number 2 of 1993]; 2. THAT the plaintiff did not lodge the requisite notice of loss of cargo with the third defendant herein within fourteen [14] days from the date of loss as required under Article 26 of the Carriage by Air Act. 3. THAT the suit as filed does not lie against the defendant as the same is incompetent.
As provided under sub-rule (2) of the rule 13 no evidence is admissible in an application under sub-rule 1 of Order VI but the applicant is required to state concisely the ground on which the application is made. Since an application under that sub-rule can only be made on the ground that the pleading sought to be struck out discloses “no reasonable cause of action or defence”, it follows that the grounds to be stated pursuant to sub-rule (2) must be germane to that broad ground. It is trite law, I think, that the determination of whether or not a pleading discloses a reasonable cause of action must be based on the consideration of the pleading itself and on no other matter.
That is indeed why no evidence is permitted in such an application. Consequently where in an application, such as the one before me, an allegation is made that notices required by law to be given were not given and that the suit is thereby extinguished or that the suit is incompetent, which allegation is denied by the other side, it is obvious that the dispute cannot be resolved without recourse to evidence, which in turn means that the matter cannot be the subject of an application under Order VI rule 13 (I) (a). It follows from the foregoing that this application is misconceived and must be dismissed with costs. It is so ordered.