[2016] KEELC 574 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants' application to strike out the plaint was not supported by any grounds as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The application failed to specify the legal basis or the particular rule under which it was brought, rendering it incompetent. The absence of stated grounds or...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEELC 574 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lamec Jillo Komora; Plaintiff: Joseph Komora Jilo; Plaintiff: Lilian Bahati; Plaintiff: Methodist Church of Kenya, Chewani Methodist (suing through above); Defendant: The Chief Chewani Location; Defendant: Mustafa Batwoya Juma; Defendant: Issa Hamara; Defendant: Akarc Hamara; Defendant: Mchawala Jrha; Defendant: Awadh Doyo Dhidha; Defendant: Ali Dhadho Oddo; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 213 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out of Pleadings, Abuse of Court Process, Failure to State Grounds, Trust Land Procedure
- 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
Lamec Jillo Komora
Plaintiff
Joseph Komora Jilo
Plaintiff
Lilian Bahati
Plaintiff
Methodist Church of Kenya, Chewani Methodist (suing through above)
Plaintiff
The Chief Chewani Location
Defendant
Mustafa Batwoya Juma
Defendant
Issa Hamara
Defendant
Akarc Hamara
Defendant
Mchawala Jrha
Defendant
Awadh Doyo Dhidha
Defendant
Ali Dhadho Oddo
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to strike out the plaint is competent in the absence of stated grounds.
- 2 Whether failure to specify the legal basis for striking out renders the application fatally defective.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants' application to strike out the plaint was not supported by any grounds as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The application failed to specify the legal basis or the particular rule under which it was brought, rendering it incompetent. The absence of stated grounds or reference to the relevant procedural rule (Order 2 Rule 15) meant the application could not be entertained. Consequently, the court struck out the application with costs to the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application dated 8th September, 2015 is struck out with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO.213 OF 2014
1. LAMEC JILLO KOMORA
2. JOSEPH KOMORA JILO
3. LILIAN BAHATI
(Suing for and on behalf ofMETHODIST CHURCH OF KENYA, CHEWANI
METHODIST............................................................PLAINTIFFS
=VERSUS=
1. THE CHIEF CHEWANI LOCATION
2. MUSTAFA BATWOYA JUMA
3. ISSA HAMARA
4. AKARC HAMARA
5. MCHAWALA JRHA
6. AWADH DOYO DHIDHA
7. ALI DHADHO ODDO
8. ATTORNEY GENERAL....................................................DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
1. What is before me is the Application by the Defendants dated 8th September, 2015 in which they are seeking for the following orders:-
(a) THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to strike out the Plaint dated 11th November, 2014 with costs of the defendant.
(b) THAT costs of this application be provided for.
2. The Application is not premised on any grounds. However, it is supported by the Affidavit of the 2nd Respondent who has deponed that this court delivered its Ruling on 5th June, 2015 dismissing the Application dated 11th November, 2014; that the net effect of the Judgment was that the entire suit cannot be sustained and that the Plaintiff did not follow the mandatory procedure of acquiring Trust land.
3. The 2nd Applicant further deponed that the Plaint is a sham, embarrassing and an abuse of the court process.
4. The Plaintiffs did not respond to the Application.
5. Order 50 Rule 4provides that every Application shall be supported with Grounds.
6. The Application before me is not supported with any grounds.
7. Indeed, it is not clear on which basis the Application is seeking to strike out the suit considering that a suit can be struck out on several grounds including on the ground that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action or that it is scandalous or that it may prejudice or embarrass the fair trial of the action or that it is otherwise an abuse of the Court Process (see Order 2 Rule 15 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules)
8. The failure by the Applicant to state the Grounds on which the Application is premised on or even to state precisely that Application has been filed pursuant to Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules renders the Application incompetent.
9. In the circumstances, I strike out the Application dated 8th September, 2015 with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered in Malindi this14thday of September, 2016.
O. A. Angote
Judge