[2005] KEHC 3098 (KLR)
The court found that the circumstances did not present a clear and unequivocal admission of liability by the defendant. The sale agreement and the defence raised issues requiring interpretation and determination at a full hearing, particularly regarding ownership of the land and alleged breach of contract. As such,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 3098 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: P & T Housing Co-operative Society Ltd; Defendant: Divisional Integrated Development Programmes Company Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 24 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Admission
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- ARM Visram
- Legal Topics
- Judgment on Admission, Contract Enforcement, Triable Issues
- 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
P & T Housing Co-operative Society Ltd
Plaintiff
Divisional Integrated Development Programmes Company Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Judgment on Admission
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant has made a clear and unequivocal admission of liability justifying judgment on admission under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the defence raises triable issues that require a full hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the circumstances did not present a clear and unequivocal admission of liability by the defendant. The sale agreement and the defence raised issues requiring interpretation and determination at a full hearing, particularly regarding ownership of the land and alleged breach of contract. As such, the application for judgment on admission was dismissed, as the threshold for granting such judgment was not met.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application for judgment on admission is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
Civil Suit 24 of 2005
P & T HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD …………….........….… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL INTERGRATED DEVELOPMEN
PROGRAMMES COMPANY LTD ………………….......………….…….. DEFENDANT
RULING
This is an application under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules for Judgment on admission.
The Applicant says that the Respondent has “admitted” receiving the sum of Kshs.7,057,070/= from it, and that the defence is a sham and mere denial. The parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of a piece of land which they knew was registered in a 3rd party’s name. Now, the Applicant wants refund of the aforesaid sum because the Respondent is not the owner of the said land and unable to convey the same to the Applicant. The Respondent, on the other hand, has cited clauses 7 and 8 of the Sale Agreement (Annexture JMS 1) which stipulate as follows:
“7. The land in question is currently registered in the name of Josphat Musyoka Nganga who has sold it to Divisional Integrated Development Programmes Company Limited.
8. Transfers from the registered owner to Divisional Integrated Development Programmes Company Limited and from Divisional Integrated Development Programmes Company Limited to the buyers of the sub-divisions will be done simultaneously when all buyers have paid their plots in full”.
Clearly, based on this agreement, and the fact that the Respondent’s defence states that it is the Applicant who is in breach of the contract, there are triable issues that make it necessary for this case to proceed to full hearing.
Judgment on admission can be granted only in clear and unequivocal circumstances, and not where one has to resort to interpretation of documents to reach a decision {See Cassam vs Sachania (1982) KLR 191}. Here, I cannot say that there is a clear and unequivocal admission of fact, and accordingly I dismiss this application with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 3rd day of November, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE