OMAR MOHAMMED & 3 OTHERS vs ASTROL ENTERPRISES LTD. & 2 OTHERS [2003] KEHC 732 (KLR)
- Citation
- [2003] KEHC 732 (KLR)
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- AI Hayanga
- Case number
- ? 1171 of 2002
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- High Court
- Panel
- AI Hayanga
- Case number
- ? 1171 of 2002
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the defence filed was a mere denial and did not raise any reasonable ground of defence or triable issue. The argument that the agreement was signed by only one plaintiff did not constitute a valid defence, as liability to one does not absolve the defendant from liability to the named plaintiff. The court was satisfied that there was no defence to the claim and, accordingly, struck out the defence and entered summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed, with costs.
Court disposition
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defence struck out.
Orders
- Defence struck out.
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed.
- Plaintiffs awarded costs of the application and the main case.
02
Material facts
Parties
Omar Mohammed & 3 others
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. NdundaAstrol Enterprises Ltd. & 2 others
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Agreed Cost of Transport: KES 816,553.4
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defence filed by the defendants discloses any reasonable ground of defence to the plaintiff's claim.
- 02
Whether summary judgment should be entered in favour of the plaintiffs under Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 03
Whether the agreement signed by only one plaintiff affects the enforceability of the claim against the defendants.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiffs argue that the cost of transport was agreed at Kshs.816,553.40, evidenced by an agreement dated 12.8.2000, and that the defendants have failed to pay. They contend that the defence is a mere denial and does not raise any triable issue, thus summary judgment should be entered in their favour.
- Respondent
- The defendants, through Mr. Mugo, oppose the application on the basis that the agreement is signed only by the first plaintiff and not the other three, and the plaintiff does not specify who is owed the money. They argue this raises an arguable point and that summary judgment should not be granted.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Summary judgment should only be granted where there is clearly no defence to the claim and no arguable point on behalf of the defendant.
- 02
Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules
A mere denial in the defence is insufficient to resist summary judgment; the defendant must show a reasonable ground of defence.
- 03
Court's reasoning in this ruling
Liability to one person under an agreement does not absolve the defendant from liability, even if other claimants are not signatories.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the defence filed was a mere denial and did not raise any reasonable ground of defence or triable issue. The argument that the agreement was signed by only one plaintiff did not constitute a valid defence, as liability to one does not absolve the defendant from liability to the named plaintiff. The court was satisfied that there was no defence to the claim and, accordingly, struck out the defence and entered summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed, with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The purpose of Order 35 is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to expedite the passing of a decree in cases where there is absolutely no defence to the claim.
- The court must be satisfied not only that there is no defence but also that there is no arguable point to be argued on behalf of the defendants.
Court disposition
Summary judgment entered for the plaintiffs; defence struck out.
- Defence struck out.
- Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed.
- Plaintiffs awarded costs of the application and the main case.
Source and reliance status
High Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
High Court
Judgment
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT KENYA AT NAIROBI H.C.CIVIL CASE NO.1171 OF 2002
OMAR MOHAMMED & (3) THREE OTHERS ………… PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS ASTROL ENTERPRISES LTD. & (2) OTHERS .……… DEFENDANTS
RULING
This is an application by way of Notice of Motion of 10. 9.2002 asking for an order to strike off the defence filed in this suit and entry of summary judgement under Order 35 Rules 1, 2 and 3 and Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Act.
Supporting affidavit by Mohammed Hassan sworn on 17. 9.2000 says that the cost of transport was agreed at Kshs.816,553. 40 but the Defendant has failed to pay it. The agreement dated 12. 8.2000 is exhibited between the Defendants and purported plaintiffs and is signed only by first Plaintiff and not the other three and this has been supported by Mr. Mugo in his opposition to the application saying the Plaintiff does not say who it is that is owed the money.
The principle applicable is that where Defendant shows defence on the merits to have leave to defend summary judgement cannot be ordered. The purpose of Order 35 is to avoid a multiplicity of suits and to expedite the passing of a decree in a case where there is absolutely no defence to the claim.
The Court must be satisfied not only that there is no defence but also that there is no arguable point to be argued on behalf of the Defendants. The defendant must show that he has some reasonable ground of defence to the action. Here the defence is a denial merely but in his submissions the defendant counsel raised the point that the agreement is signed by one Plaintiff but that is not a defence because of liability to one person may only bar other claimants from bringing any fuller claims besides it does not absolve liability against the named defendant.
I am satisfied having considered the affidavit and the application that there is no defence to the claim and same is hereby struck off and judgement entered in favour of the Plaintiff as prayed with costs to this application with cost of the main case and of the application.
DELIVERED at Nairobi this 23rd day of May 2003.
A.I. HAYANGA
JUDGE
Read to –
Mr. Ndunda for Applicant
No appearance for Respondent
23. 5.2003
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.