[2007] KEHC 3107 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had willfully and deliberately failed to comply with a court order requiring it to provide particulars of its plaint. This non-compliance persisted without any attempt by the plaintiff to seek a variation of the order or to provide an explanation. The court held that such conduct...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3107 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Malar Limited; Defendant: National Bank of Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 659 of 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Strike Out Plaint
- Outcome
- Plaint struck out and suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out of Pleadings, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Particulars of Claim
- 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
Malar Limited
Plaintiff
National Bank of Kenya Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons to Strike Out Plaint
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit should be struck out for failure to supply particulars as ordered by the court.
- 2 Whether non-compliance with a court order to provide particulars justifies dismissal of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had willfully and deliberately failed to comply with a court order requiring it to provide particulars of its plaint. This non-compliance persisted without any attempt by the plaintiff to seek a variation of the order or to provide an explanation. The court held that such conduct exposed the plaint to being struck out, as the absence of particulars could embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action and constituted an abuse of the court process. The court was persuaded by both statutory authority and case law that failure to comply with orders for particulars or discovery justifies the striking out of pleadings. Consequently, the court allowed the...
Court Disposition
Plaint struck out and suit dismissed with costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The plaint is struck out and the suit is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 659 of 2003
MALAR LIMITED……….……..………………… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA LIMITED….. DEFENDANT
RULING
The defendant lodged this Chamber Summons under Section 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act Order VI Rules 8, 13 (c) and (d) and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the Law for one primary order that the plaintiff’s suit be struck out. The grounds for the application are that on 8. 11. 2004, an order was made requiring the plaintiff to supply particulars of its claim by 30. 11. 2004 but the plaintiff has todate failed and or neglected to supply the said particulars and as the plaint fails to set out the said particulars the fair trial of the action will be obstructed and the defendant will be prejudiced in the conduct of its defence.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Clifford Okello Rachuonyo counsel for the defendant. The affidavit elaborates the said grounds. The application has not been opposed and neither a replying affidavit nor grounds of opposition were filed. When the application came up before me for hearing on 15. 3.2007 it proceeded exparte as neither the plaintiff nor its advocates attended.
Having considered the application, the record and the submissions of counsel for the defendant I take the following view of the matter. The jurisdiction to strike out a plaint is a harsh one and should be exercised sparingly. According to Mulla’s Code of Civil Procedure 16th Edition, Volume II at page 1794, the penalty for non compliance with an order for further and better particulars by a defendant is that his defence is liable to be struck out and if the default is by the plaintiff the suit may be dismissed.
In this case, the plaintiff was to serve on the defendant particulars of its plaint dated 4. 8.2003 as per the request for particulars dated 31. 8.2004 on or before 30. 11. 2004. The defendant had sought particulars of paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16 of the plaint. Since the date of the said order, the plaintiff has not complied with the same nor has it sought a variation of that order. In Eastern Radio Service – vs – Tiny Tots [1967] E. A. 392, the Court of Appeal held that failure to give discovery and inspection may result in the striking out of a suit. Although that case considered failure to make discovery, I am persuaded by the logic therein. In my view, a plaintiff who deliberately and willfully disregards an order of the court to serve particulars should suffer the same penalty. In the premises, I hold that having failed or neglected to serve particulars of its plaint, as ordered by the court or at all, the plaintiff has exposed its plaint to the order sought by the defendant. In the absence of the particulars the plaint may embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action and is also an abuse of the process of the court.
In the result I allow the defendant’s application and order that the plaint be and is hereby struck out and the suit is dismissed with costs.
Costs of this application are awarded to the defendant.
Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2007.
F. AZANGALALA
JUDGE
Read in the presence