[2005] KEHC 1769 (KLR)
The court found that the plaint lacked sufficient particulars as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The paragraphs in the plaint were vague and did not provide enough detail for the defendant to understand the case against her. The court held that particulars are necessary to define the issues for trial and to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1769 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Matrix Technologies Limited; Defendant: Sheila Kinya Maingi t/a Riziki Communications
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 339 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Further and Better Particulars
- Outcome
- application allowed in part
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Pleadings Particulars, Striking Out Pleadings, Commercial Debt Recovery
- 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
Matrix Technologies Limited
Plaintiff
Sheila Kinya Maingi t/a Riziki Communications
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Further and Better Particulars
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaint as filed by the plaintiff contains sufficient particulars to enable the defendant understand the case against her.
- 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to further and better particulars of the plaint.
- 3 Whether failure to provide particulars should result in striking out or staying the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaint lacked sufficient particulars as required by the Civil Procedure Rules. The paragraphs in the plaint were vague and did not provide enough detail for the defendant to understand the case against her. The court held that particulars are necessary to define the issues for trial and to prevent surprise. The court reviewed the defendant's specific requests for particulars and determined that requests (i) to (iv) were material and necessary, while request (v) sought evidence rather than particulars and was therefore not allowed. The court ordered the plaintiff to supply the required particulars within 14 days, failing which the suit would be stayed and the...
Court Disposition
application allowed in part
Orders
- The plaintiff shall within 14 days deliver to the defendant further and better particulars of the plaint dated 31st June 2005, specifically request numbers (i) to (iv) only.
- In default, the suit will be stayed and the defendant will be at liberty to apply for dismissal under Order XVI Rule 5 for want of prosecution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI Civil Suit 339 of 2005
MATRIX TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED…………………..………LIMITED VERSUS SHEILA KINYA MAINGI T/A RIZIKI COMMUNICATIONS………………………….DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The defendant by a chambers summons brought under Order VI Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeks an order that the plaintiff do supply further and better particulars of the plaint within 14 days in default that the plaint be struck out.
The plaintiff counsel even though served with the application failed to attend on the day of hearing.
The defendant seeks the particulars on the basis that the plaint is too vague and does not contain the necessary particulars to enable the defendant understand the case against her.
I have examined the plaint and I am in agreement with the defendant that it indeed lacks particulars. The paragraphs relating to the claim state as follows: -
“The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of kshs 4, 327, 155. 40 due and owing to the plaintiff on account of goods supplied to the defendant.
Demand has been made and notice given of intention to sue but the defendant has failed, refused and/or neglected to settle the account thus rendering this suit necessary.”
Although it is required that all pleadings be precise they must also embody all the particulars. The object of having particulars in pleadings is to ensure that the other party is not taken by surprise at the trial and to define the issues to be tried so as to save unnecessary expense.
I have perused the defendant’s request for particulars and I find that request number (i) to (iv) are necessary pertinent and material to the plaint hereof; but request number (v) is in my view not material and does seem to be requesting for evidence rather than particulars.
The defendant’s application is merited and the orders of this court are:
(a) The plaintiff do within 14 days deliver to the defendant further and better particulars of the plaint dated 31st June 2005, more particular request No (i) to (iv) only.
(b) In default this suit will be stayed and the defendant will be at liberty to apply for dismissal of the suit under Order XVI Rule 5 for want of prosecution.
(c) The costs of the application dated 12th July 2005 are awarded to the defendant
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 22nd of July 2005.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE