[2007] KEHC 2987 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant had admitted in her letter dated 18th January 1995 to owing the plaintiff the sum claimed, including the overdraft and accrued interest. The defence filed was a mere denial and did not raise any triable issue. The plaintiff's claim was for a liquidated sum, and the defendant's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2987 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: National Bank of Kenya; Defendant: Linah Chebet Kipsei
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 31 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed; defence struck out; summary judgment entered for plaintiff
- Judges
- K Bauni
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Liquidated Demands, Overdraft Liability, Defence Striking Out
- 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
National Bank of Kenya
Plaintiff
Linah Chebet Kipsei
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence and Enter Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant's defence should be struck out as a mere denial.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for the liquidated sum claimed plus interest and costs.
- 3 Whether the defendant's admission in correspondence constitutes sufficient basis for summary judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant had admitted in her letter dated 18th January 1995 to owing the plaintiff the sum claimed, including the overdraft and accrued interest. The defence filed was a mere denial and did not raise any triable issue. The plaintiff's claim was for a liquidated sum, and the defendant's admission removed any doubt as to liability. Therefore, the requirements for summary judgment under Order XXXV rule 1 (1) (a) and (2) CPR were satisfied. The court struck out the defence and entered judgment for the plaintiff for the sum claimed, with interest and costs.
Court Disposition
application allowed; defence struck out; summary judgment entered for plaintiff
Orders
- The defence filed herein is struck out.
- Judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of Shs.2,052,072.65.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
CIVIL CASE 31 OF 1996
NATIONAL BANK OF KENYA........................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LINAH CHEBET KIPSEI:............................DEFENDANT
RULING
Before me is an application under Order XXXV rule 1 (1) (a) and (2) CPR seeking the defendants defence dated 30th may 1996 to be struck out and summary judgment to be entered against the defendant for Shs.2,056,072/65 plus interest and costs.
By a plaint filed on 27th February 1996 the plaintiff Bank sought judgment against the defendant LINA JEBET KIPSEI for Shs.2,056,072/65 with interest being the amount which the defendant had accumulated as an overdraft as of 18th January 1995. He also sought interest and a penalty of 32%, on the principle amount. the defendant for a long time did not file defence. Eventually defence was filed on 12th June 1996 in which the defendants denied the claim. It is this judgment the applicant seeks to be struck out and judgment to be entered.
The defendant was served with the present application. However she did not file any replying affidavits or grounds of opposition. Application was therefore heard exparte.
The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by one G.O. OJIAMBO the plaintiffs branch manager Eldoret. He deponed that the defendant was in 1993 overdrew on her account No. 401-030-784 held at Eldoret Branch to the tune of Shs.1,200,000/= to transact in maize business. This is the money which after attracting interest rose to Shs.2,056. 072/65. On 18th January 1995 the defendant wrote to the plaintiff a letter admitting that she owed the money and giving a proposal on how to pay the amount.
However by the time the suit was filed the money had not been repaid.
As stated earlier the defendant made no reply to the application. In essence it was unopposed. Order 35 rule 1 (a) CPR provides;
“ (1) In all suits where the plaintiff seeks judgment for;-
(a) a liquidated demand with interest or
(b)....................................................
where the defendant has appeared the plaintiff may apply for judgment for the amount claimed, or part thereof and interest...............”
The claim against the plaintiff is a liquidated one. the plaintiff has stated in his grounds that the defence filed was a mere denial and therefore a show and that the defendant had admitted the claim in her letter to the plaintiff. I have considered the application and the defence and final the application is merited. The plaintiff had clearly stated in the plaint that the defendant had withdrawn her account with the sum of Shs.1,200,000. =. The defendant in defence denied holding any account with the plaintiff but is her letter exh. ‘G.001’ dated 18th January she candidly admits holding account No. 401-030-784 and overdrawn her account with Shs.1,200,000/= to buy maize in Uganda. She explained why she could not be able to repay the amount and acknowledged that with the interest accrued her indebtness to the plaintiff was Sh.2,052,072/65. This money she has not paid. Having admitted the amount I find that there is really no triable issues. As stated the defence is a mere denial and the plaintiff having shown that the defendant indeed owed it the amount claimed there is no issue to go for trial.
In the circumstances the application is allowed. The defence filed herein is struck out and judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of Shs.2,052,072/65 with interest at 32% from 18th January 1995 to the date of filing the suit from which date the interest will be at courts rate. The defendant will also pay costs of the suit.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret this 4th day of April, 2007
KABURU BAUNI
JUDGE
DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
C/C - David
.......................................for applicant
.......................................for Respondent