[2006] KEHC 1371 (KLR)
The court held that the plaintiff's application, having been made under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, ought to have been brought by Notice of Motion pursuant to Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and not by Chamber Summons. The court found that the procedural defect was fatal and rendered the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1371 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Phaze Industries Ltd; Defendant: Shaman Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Springvale Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Sudbury Holdings Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 890 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Preliminary Objection upheld; plaintiff's application struck out as incompetent.
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Mode of Application, Section 3a Civil Procedure Act, Notice of Motion, Chamber Summons, Costs Award
- 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
Phaze Industries Ltd
Plaintiff
Shaman Holdings Ltd
Defendant
Springvale Holdings Ltd
Defendant
Sudbury Holdings Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an application under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act can be brought by Chamber Summons instead of Notice of Motion.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff's application is incompetent due to procedural impropriety.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiff's application, having been made under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, ought to have been brought by Notice of Motion pursuant to Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and not by Chamber Summons. The court found that the procedural defect was fatal and rendered the application incompetent. The Preliminary Objection was therefore upheld, and the plaintiff's Chamber Summons was struck out. However, the plaintiff was granted liberty to file a competent application. Costs of the Preliminary Objection were awarded to the defendants.
Court Disposition
Preliminary Objection upheld; plaintiff's application struck out as incompetent.
Orders
- Plaintiff's Chamber Summons dated 30th May 2006 is struck out for being incompetent.
- Plaintiff is at liberty to file a competent application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 890 of 2001
PHAZE INDUSTRIES LTD……………………...................................…………………….…...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SHAMAN HOLDINGS LTD……………………...............................………………….1ST DEFENDANT
SPRINGVALE HOLDINGS LTD……………….................................……….……….2ND DEFENDANT
SUDBURY HOLDINGS LTD……….................................…………………….……...3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
The plaintiff made an application by Chamber Summons under Section 3A of the Civil procedure Rules seeking orders that an early hearing date be given for the plaintiff’s application dated 10th April 2006 and the same be heard and determined on priority basis. A Preliminary Objection was taken on behalf of the defendants that the application was incompetent on the ground that the same is made under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and an application based on Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act can only be made by Notice of Motion and not by Chamber Summons. Mr. Ngatia referred to the case of SALUME NAMUKASA VS. YOSEPH BUKYA 1966 EA 433
where UDO UDOMA CJ said:-
“The application not having been brought by motion on notice is therefore incompetent and held that it was not properly before the court.”
And in MORRIS & CO. LLTD VS. KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD 2003 EA 605 Ringera, J had this to say:-
“An application for a mandatory injunction can only be made pursuant to the provisions of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. And the procedural mode in that case is a Notice of Motion pursuant to Order L Rule 1of the Civil Procedure Rules and held that the application was incompetent.”
Mr. Mbaabu counsel for the plaintiff in opposing the Preliminary Objection submitted that the authority quoted by counsel for the defendant is a Ugandan case and therefore not binding in this court.
That notwithstanding the Civil Procedure Rules applied in Uganda are similar to those applied in Kenya and the same was quoted with approval in the above Kenyan case.
The plaintiffs application having been made pursuant to the provisions of Section 3A of the Civil procedure Act it ought to have been brought under Order L Rule 1 by Notice of motion and not by Chamber Summons.
The Preliminary Objection is therefore upheld and the plaintiff’s Chamber Summons dated 30th May 2006 is struck out for being incompetent. But the plaintiff is at liberty to file a competent application. The defendant is entitled to the costs of this Preliminary Objection and it is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 14th day of July 2006.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE