[2009] KEHC 3332 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd defendant was at all material times a disclosed agent of the 1st defendant, and this fact was known to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant admitted entering into the contract and taking responsibility as principal. In law, a disclosed agent cannot be held liable where the principal is known...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3332 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Maria Rimanto Kapteen; Defendant: Kenya Wine Agencies; Defendant: Ayton Young & Rubicam Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 435 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit Against 2nd Defendant
- Outcome
- Suit against the 2nd defendant struck out with costs.
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Agency Law, Reasonable Cause of Action
- 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
Maria Rimanto Kapteen
Plaintiff
Kenya Wine Agencies
Defendant
Ayton Young & Rubicam Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit Against 2nd Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant.
- 2 Whether a disclosed agent can be sued where the principal is known and has admitted liability.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd defendant was at all material times a disclosed agent of the 1st defendant, and this fact was known to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant admitted entering into the contract and taking responsibility as principal. In law, a disclosed agent cannot be held liable where the principal is known and has admitted liability. Since the plaint disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the 2nd defendant, the suit against the 2nd defendant was struck out with costs.
Court Disposition
Suit against the 2nd defendant struck out with costs.
Orders
- The suit against the 2nd defendant is struck out with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 435 of 2008
MARIA RIMANTO KAPTEEN............................................... PLAINTIF
VERSUS
KENYA WINE AGENCIES............................ 1ST DEFENDANT
AYTON YOUNG &RUBICAM LIMITE.............2NDDEFEDANT
RULING
By way of an application by Chamber Summons brought under the provisions of order VI rule 13(1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the 2nd defendant applied for the suit filed by the plaintiff be struck out with costs. The grounds in support of the application are that the plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action. From the pleadings filed, it is evident that the 2nd defendant was at all material times acting as a disclosed agent of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was also aware that she was dealing with the 2nd defendant as an agent of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant in its defence admits entering into contract the subject matter of this suit with the plaintiff by taking responsibility in the name of principal.
The application is not opposed. Going by the material on record, it is evident that in this matter the 2nd defendant’s role as an agent of the 1st defendant was well known to the plaintiff. The law in regard to a disclosed agent is well settled in various decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal especially the case of Wareham t/a A.F. Wareham & 2 Others vs. Kenya Post Office Savings Bank [2004] 2 KLR page 98.
Accordingly considering the matters pleaded, that no cause of action disclosed against the 2nd defendant. This suit is hereby struck out as against the 2nd defendant with costs.
RULING READ AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY 2009.
M.K. KOOME
JUDGE