[2016] KEHC 2162 (KLR)
The court held that the existence or non-existence of the statutory notice required under section 46(a) of the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Act is a contested factual issue. Since a preliminary objection must be based on uncontested facts and pure points of law, and not on matters requiring factual determination,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2162 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nelius Wanjiru Wanjiku; Defendant: Kenya Broadcasting Corporation; Defendant: Muthoni Gitau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Murang'a
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 67 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Defamation, Preliminary Objection, Statutory Notice Requirement
- 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
Nelius Wanjiru Wanjiku
Plaintiff
Kenya Broadcasting Corporation
Defendant
Muthoni Gitau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is incompetent for failure to issue statutory notice under section 46(a) of the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Act before filing suit.
- 2 Whether a preliminary objection can be sustained where the facts are contested.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the existence or non-existence of the statutory notice required under section 46(a) of the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Act is a contested factual issue. Since a preliminary objection must be based on uncontested facts and pure points of law, and not on matters requiring factual determination, the preliminary objection raised by the Defendants was premature and not well taken. The court therefore overruled the preliminary objection with costs to the Plaintiff.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled with costs to the Plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MURANG’A
CIVIL CASE NO 67 OF 2013
NELIUS WANJIRU WANJIKU…….…………………...........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. KENYA BROADCASTING CORPORATION
2. MUTHONI GITAU…………………………..………….DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
1. The Plaintiff’s suit herein against the Defendants is in defamation. The Defendants have raised a preliminary objection to the suit on the point of law that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the provisions of section 46(a) of the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation Act, Cap 221 in that she did not issue the statutory 30-day notice required by the said section before filing the suit. Section 46(a) aforesaid provides –
“46. Limitation
Where any action or other legal proceeding is commenced against the Corporation for any act done in pursuance or execution, or intended execution of this Act or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act or of any such duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect —
(a) the action or legal proceeding shall not be commenced against the Corporation until at least one month after written notice containing the particulars of the claim and of the intention to commence the action proceedings, has been served upon the Managing Director by the plaintiff or his agent;
2. Whereas the Plaintiff concedes that indeed statutory notice as above was required, her response at paragraph 6 of her written submissions is that indeed she issued such statutory notice through her lawyers by letter dated 14/01/2013, and that a copy of the notice is annexed to the plaint. I have perused the court record herein, and I have not seen any such notice annexed to the plaint. But that does not change the fact that whether or not statutory notice as required by the provisions of law above-quoted was issued is a contested matter of fact.
3. A preliminary objection on a point of law cannot be founded upon contested facts. See the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd -vs- West End Distributors (1969) EA 696. The position here is that the court will have to try first the factual issue whether or not statutory notice was duly issued and served before any preliminary point of law can be founded on that fact.
4. In these circumstances, the preliminary objection is not well taken and is premature. It is hereby overruled with costs to the Plaintiff. It is so ordered.
DATED AND SIGNED AT MURANG’A THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT MURANG’A THIS 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016