[2005] KEHC 704 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 704 (KLR)

The court held that the mere filing of a suit without serving summons on the defendant does not bring the matter within the ambit of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the plaintiff had not been served with summons in the previous suit and was not notified of its existence, there was no basis for accusing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 704 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mugumoini Farmers Co. Ltd; Defendant: Inshwil Builders Engineers Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1171 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection rejected
Judges
JL Osiemo
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court, Pendency of Previous Suit, Non Disclosure of Material Facts, Interim Injunctions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Jurisdiction of Court Pendency of Previous Suit Non Disclosure of Material Facts Interim Injunctions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mugumoini Farmers Co. Ltd

Plaintiff

Inshwil Builders Engineers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit in light of a previously instituted suit between the same parties over the same subject matter.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was guilty of deliberate and intentional material non-disclosure regarding the existence of the previous suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the mere filing of a suit without serving summons on the defendant does not bring the matter within the ambit of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the plaintiff had not been served with summons in the previous suit and was not notified of its existence, there was no basis for accusing the plaintiff of deliberate and intentional non-disclosure. Consequently, the court rejected the defendant's preliminary objection and found that it retained jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection rejected

Orders

  • The defendant's preliminary objection is rejected.
  • The matter to be mentioned before the Duty Judge on 13th October 2005 to take a date for the hearing inter partes of the plaintiff’s Chamber Summons dated 4th October 2005.