[2008] KEHC 374 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 374 (KLR)

The court found that the verifying affidavit attached to the plaint was sufficient for the purposes of Order VII Rule 1(2), as it affirmed the truth and correctness of the plaint's averments. The court further held that the issue of limitation could not be determined at this stage without proper evidence and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 374 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: National Oil Corporation of Kenya Ltd; Defendant: Roy Spares and Hauliers Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 42 of 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Suit, Limitation of Actions, Delay in Prosecution, Verification of Pleadings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Striking Out of Suit Limitation of Actions Delay in Prosecution Verification of Pleadings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Oil Corporation of Kenya Ltd

Plaintiff

Roy Spares and Hauliers Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be struck out for being fatally defective and incompetent.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in prosecuting the suit warrants dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the verifying affidavit attached to the plaint was sufficient for the purposes of Order VII Rule 1(2), as it affirmed the truth and correctness of the plaint's averments. The court further held that the issue of limitation could not be determined at this stage without proper evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. The court also noted that, despite the delay, both parties had been active in the proceedings, and therefore the delay did not warrant striking out the suit. Consequently, the application to strike out the suit was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out the suit is dismissed.
  • All costs occasioned to the applicant in this suit be assessed and paid to the applicant within 21 days.