https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7788

Larsen v Mbugua (Civil Case 282 of 2018) [2026] KEHC 7788 (KLR) (Civ) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7788 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Case 282 of 2018 JN Mulwa, J June 4, 2026 Between Christian Lau Larsen Plaintiff and Samuel Kuria Mbugua Applicant Ruling 1.For determination is the motion dated 07/07/2025 filed by Samuel Kuria Mbugua (hereafter the Applicant/Defendant) against Christian Lau Larsen (hereafter the Respondent/Plaintiff). It is brought pursuant to Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (CPA) and Order 2 Rule 15(1)(d) & Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) seeking inter alia: -a.That Hon. Lady Justice Ongeri, the presiding Judge, set the case for hearing according to the wishes of the Plaintiff/Respondent and in total blatant disregard of the Defendant/Applicant against the rules of Court’s litigation.b.That Hon Lady Justice Ongeri ignored Court orders over motion by the Defendant/Respondent on record, where the Court allowed the defence and counterclaim by the Defendant/Respondent on record, which was replaced with objections filed by Mr. Nyagito of Nyagito & Associates Co. Advocates also on record.c.That Hon Lady Justice Ongeri presided over the case hearing on the basis of objections filed by Mr. Nyagito which were rejected by the Defendant/Applicant for replacement, which this Court allowed the defence and counterclaim in his absence and under representation of Mr. Nyagito who was imposed to represent the Defendant/Applicant. 2.The motion is premised on grounds amplified in the supporting affidavit sworn on an even date by the Applicant, acting in person. 3.The Respondent/Plaintiff through Counsel Mr. Njenga informed the Court when the above motion came up for directions, that the Respondent would leave the determination of the application to the Court. Thus, it is on the premise of the above intimation that the Respondent opted not to file any response or submissions, in opposition to the motion. 4.The Applicant on his part filed submissions, of which this Court has duly considered and thus postulates that the issue(s) for determination thus concern-:a.Whether the Defendant/Applicant’s motion is merited?b.Who ought to bear the costs of the motion? Whether the Applicant’s motion is merited? 5.At the outset it would be remiss if I do not state that I write this ruling with reluctance and with utmost respect to the Applicant, for reasons that will become apparent later herein. 6.That said, in presenting the instant motion, the Applicant has sought three (3) prayers while anchoring the same on Section 3A of the CPA which specifically reserves “the inherent power of the Court “to make such orders as it may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court”. (emphasis added). This Court’s inherent powers was judiciously addressed by the Court of Appeal in Rose Njoki Kingau & another v Shaba Trustees Limited & another [2010] KECA 87 (KLR) and thus requires no restatement. 7.Alongside the above, the Applicant equally relied on Order 2 Rule 15(1)(d) of the CPR which provides that-;“At any stage of the proceedings the Court may order to be struck out or amendment of any pleading on the ground that—(a)…………; or(b)…………; or(c)…………; or(d)it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court” 8.Concerning the striking out of pleadings, there are replete authorities on the same and I do not intend to re-invent the wheel. See-; D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina [1982] eKLR, Crescent Construction Co. Ltd v Delphis Bank Ltd [2007] KECA 500 (KLR), Kivanga Estates Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2017] KECA 591 (KLR) and Cooperative Merchant Bank Ltd v George Fredrick Wekesa Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1999 as cited in Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd v Grace Anyona Mbinda [2016] KEHC 4003 (KLR), among others. 9.Before addressing the crux of the motion, it warrants that I contextualize the matter, by setting out a brief history leading hereto. The Plaintiff’s suit is founded on defamation, and was filed sometime in 2018. Since filing of the suit, it has yet to be set down for hearing. Nevertheless, what I garner from the record of proceedings is that the Defendant has changed counsel severally while equally alternating with a Notice to Act in Person, with the latter being the obtaining situation as at filing of the present motion. 10.It is also notable that in the aforestated intervening period, the Defendant as filed five (5) applications, with the Court rendering itself on 12/06/2025 with respect to the Defendant’s motion dated 25/08/2024. A month after he presented the instant motion. 11.Why do I take the liberty of setting about the above history? As the record will bear witness, the Defendant/Applicant is litigious. While his litigiousness cannot be faulted given his constitutional rights under Article 48, 50(1) & 159(1) of the Constitution, the said right is not absolute, when it cascades towards abuse of the Court process. 12.There are long line of authorities within our jurisdiction addressing what constitutes abuse of the Court process, to wit, this Court finds reverence in the decision in Energy Regulatory Commission v John Sigura Otido [2021] KECA 1060 (KLR) wherein the Court stated that: -“24.We start with the issue of alleged abuse of the court process. What is the meaning of “abuse of the court process”" That term has been the subject of consideration in a number of decisions by this Court and other Courts. In Muchanga Investments Ltd vs Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others (supra) this Court observed that it is difficult to comprehensively list all possible forms of conduct that constitute abuse of judicial process. The Court cited the Nigerian case of Sarak v Kotoye [1992] 9 NWLR 9Pt 264 where abuse of judicial process was defined as follows:-“The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise; it implies circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. It’s one feature is the improper use of the judicial powers by a party in litigation to interfere with the administration of justice…”25.The same Court went on to cite examples of abuse of judicial process which include: -“(a)Instituting multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues or a multiplicity of action on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to begin the action.(b)Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts even though on different grounds.(c)Where two similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right for example, a cross appeal and a respondent’s notice.” 13.As earlier stated in this ruling, the Applicant/Defendant in this motion has sought three (3) prayers before this Court. An ex facie review of the reliefs he seeks, there is no clarity as to what he seeks from the court, on the premise of his prayers as drafted. Again, I note with reservation, that the above manner of drafting was replicated in other motions he earlier filed before this Court, while he was acting in person. 14.The Applicant’s instant application as presented has no sustainable prayer(s) for consideration and or capable of being granted by this Court. 15.While I appreciate that the Applicant is presently acting in person, and may in all probability, be afflicted by the deficiency of proper legal training on drafting and or presentation of pleadings, the latter is no excuse to place before a Court poorly drafted pleadings. 16.It is long settled within our jurisdiction that a Court ought not drive a litigant from the seat of justice on technicalities. It is however concomitantly the position that the issues for determination in a suit generally flows from the pleadings and a trial Court can only pronounce itself on the issues arising from the pleadings or such issues as the parties may frame for determination. See-: Galaxy Paints Co. Limited v Falcon Guards Limited [2000] 2 EA 385. 17.Here, the Court is at a loss, in respect of what the Applicant really seeks. Further, his reliance on Section 3A of the CPA, Order 2 Rule 15(1)(d) of the CPR and the depositions in his affidavit in support, do not offer any aid as to the intent of the application. Whereas the motion somewhat presents as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, the need for properly drafted pleadings can never be underestimated. 18.As to the importance of clarity in pleadings , the Court of Appeal in JTG Enterprises Limited v China Gezhouba Group & another [2024] KECA 596 (KLR) had this to say-:13……….. The way this application and the prayers are drafted shows the need for proper drafting and consideration of the issues before filing an omnibus application which is confusing, to say the least.14.This Court will not tire to remind parties that proper drafting of pleadings is so paramount that it goes to the kernel of administration of justice. Where pleadings create incertitude to a fact finder, it will be impossible to understand the remedies being sought. As a result of this, a would-be good case is butchered because of poorly drafted pleadings. Parties are encouraged to draft painstakingly while bearing in mind that the very draft of that pleading could lead to its actual success or failure. 19.In the end, I believe the Court has reasonably addressed itself as to its earlier reluctance in writing the present ruling. Other than the Court's inability to decipher the Applicant’s intent, I think that the motion likewise borders on abuse of the Court process. I say this lightly; that it would be best served for the Applicant to engage services of an Advocate as initially done, or if unable to, endeavor to present comprehensible pleadings next time. 20.Consequently, the court has arrived at the unbridled conclusion that the Applicant/Defendant’s motion dated 7/7/2025 lacks merit and is therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs. 21.The court notes that this is a very old case. I therefore direct that the same be listed for Pretrial Directions before the Deputy Registrar of this court, Hon. C. Njue on 23/6/2026. Orders Accordingly. DELIVERED DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.……………………….JANET MULWA.JUDGE