[2000] KEHC 135 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant had acknowledged the loan in writing on two occasions, and had not raised any complaints about the charges or the amount in those letters. The defence of denial was inconsistent with the documentary evidence. The court also held that the suit was filed within six years of the last...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 135 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nationwide Finance Company Limited; Defendant: Eugenia WanjiJu Wariithi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 901 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed; summary judgment entered for plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Loan Recovery, Acknowledgment of Debt, Limitation Periods
- 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
Nationwide Finance Company Limited
Plaintiff
Eugenia WanjiJu Wariithi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Application for Summary Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant is truly and justly indebted to the plaintiff for the loan amount claimed.
- 2 Whether the defence raises any triable issue fit to go for trial.
- 3 Whether the suit is time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant had acknowledged the loan in writing on two occasions, and had not raised any complaints about the charges or the amount in those letters. The defence of denial was inconsistent with the documentary evidence. The court also held that the suit was filed within six years of the last acknowledgment, thus not time barred. The defence was deemed a sham, raising no triable issue, and summary judgment was appropriate in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
Court Disposition
application allowed; summary judgment entered for plaintiff
Orders
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed in the plaint.
- The defendant will bear the plaintiff’s costs of this suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI( MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
CIV CASE 901 OF 94
NATIONWIDE FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED V EUGENIA WANJIJU WARIITHI
T MBALUTO, J
MARCH 21, 2000.
RULING
This is an application for summary judgment under O. XXXV rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn on September 21, 1999 by Julius Mwaniki Gikonyo, an officer in the advances department of Consolidated Bank Finance Limited, which owns the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant arises from a loan advanced to the defendant which together with interest accrued thereon as well as other charges said to have been incurred by the plaintiff in connection with the loan and for which the defendant is said to be liable amounted to Kshs 1,198,918. 70 as at January 31, 1994 roughly a month before the suit was filed.
The defendant’s defence to the claim was a general denial. She denied having entered into any contract with the plaintiff or having been advanced any money by the plaintiff. However, annexed to Mr. Gikonyo’s affidavit are two letters written by the defendant on July 5, 1984 and May 9, 1989 in which the defendant not only acknowledges having received the loan, but through which she made proposals regarding repayment of the loan. In view of this, the defendant cannot be heard to say that she did not receive the loan.
Also given the fact that the defendant did not, in the two letters complain of any irregular charges, the claim in her grounds of opposition that the accounts are inaccurate and that some of the money now being claimed was never drawn is clearly an afterthought. The complaints about alleged exorbitant and arbitrary charges are also inconsistent with the defence put forward by the defendant. The complaints are unsubstantiated and lack substance. Similarly, the claim that the suit is time barred has no merit. I say so because I notice that the suit was filed within 6 years after the defendant had acknowledged the loan vide her letter dated May 9, 1989.
For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the defendant is truly and justly indebted to the plaintiff in the sum claimed in the plaint and that her defence is a mere sham which raises no triable issue fit to go for trial. Accordingly, I allow the application and enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed in the plaint. The defendant will bear the plaintiff’s costs of this suit.