[2008] KEHC 1143 (KLR)
The court found that none of the nine grounds raised in the plaintiffs' notice of preliminary objection met the threshold of a pure point of law as defined in Mukisa Biscuit Co. v West End Distributors Ltd. Some grounds were based on contentious facts requiring ascertainment at a substantive hearing, while others...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1143 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lawrence Paul Munyi; Plaintiff: Andreya O. Wanekeya; Plaintiff: William Luvisia Majani; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 709 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled; costs awarded to defendant
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Pure Point of Law, Judicial Discretion, Pleadings, Costs Award
- 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
Lawrence Paul Munyi
Plaintiff
Andreya O. Wanekeya
Plaintiff
William Luvisia Majani
Plaintiff
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the grounds raised in the preliminary objection constitute pure points of law as required by established legal standards.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection, if upheld, could dispose of the application without further hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of the nine grounds raised in the plaintiffs' notice of preliminary objection met the threshold of a pure point of law as defined in Mukisa Biscuit Co. v West End Distributors Ltd. Some grounds were based on contentious facts requiring ascertainment at a substantive hearing, while others would require the court to exercise its discretion. Since a preliminary objection must be based solely on points of law and not on disputed facts or discretionary matters, the objection was not well-founded. The court therefore overruled the preliminary objection and awarded costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled; costs awarded to defendant
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- Costs of the preliminary objection are awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 709 of 2003
1. LAWRENCE PAUL MUNYI
2. ANDREYA O. WANEKEYA
3. WILLIAM LUVISIA MAJANI...............................PLAINTIFFS
(Suing on their own behalf and as representatives of affected officers of the Kenya Meteorological Department of the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Government of Kenya employed as public officers designated “Meteorological Assistant”)
V E R S U S
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL .....................................DEFENDANT
(Sued under the Government Proceedings Act, Cap 40 of the Laws of Kenya on behalf of:-
(a) The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Transport & Communications
(b) The Director, Directorate of Personnel Management
(c) The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury
(d) The Public Service Commission of Kenya)
R U L I N G
The Plaintiffs have, by notice dated 30th June, 2008, raised a preliminary objection to the Defendant’s application by notice of motion dated 24th April, 2008. That application seeks orders to review and set aside orders entered on 27th February, 2004 and 28th April, 2004.
The orders of 27th February, 2004, (Ojwang’, J) disallowed the Plaintiff’s application by notice of motion dated 8th December, 2003 for interlocutory judgment and for a date for assessment of damages. The disallowance of that application was stated by the learned judge to be:-
“Conditional upon the Respondent (Defendant), within 14 days of this ruling, filing and serving the required pleadings and/or affidavits for the prosecution of this case.”
There was no default clause in the order of 27th February, 2004; that is, it was not stated in terms what should happen if the Defendant did not, within 14 days of the ruling, file and serve “the required pleadings and/or affidavits”.
By the orders of 28th April, 2004 (Kihara Kariuki, J) the Plaintiff’s application by notice of motion dated 27th April, 2004 was allowed in prayer no. 3 thereof. I have not been able to find that application in the court record; so I do not know what precisely had been sought in prayer no. 3 thereof. But the formal order issued on 10th May, 2004 says that judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for various declarations and orders. It was further ordered that the suit be set down for assessment of damages.
I have read the grounds set out in the notice of preliminary objection. I have also given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels appearing. In the case of MUKISA BISCUIT CO. –vs- WEST END DISTRIBUTORS LTD [1969] EA 696, Law, JA stated:-
“...So far as I am aware, a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration ....”
In the same case Sir Charles Newbold, P said:-
“...A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion ....”
I have carefully read the nine grounds set out in the notice of preliminary objection in light of the above perimeters set by the predecessor of our Court of Appeal. None of these grounds meets the standard of a preliminary objection as defined in the two quotes. Some of the grounds are based on contentious facts that must be ascertained at the hearing of the application. Others will depend upon exercise of the court’s discretion. None of them raises a pure point of law capable of disposing of the application unheard.
I must therefore overrule the preliminary objection. It is not well-taken at all. I will award costs thereof to the Defendant. It is so ordered.
DATED, AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008
H. P. G. WAWERU
J U D G E
DELIVERED THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008