[2005] KEHC 1685 (KLR)
The High Court found that the appellant's defence, which asserted that it had settled all charges for the corporate card and denied liability for charges on a personal card issued to the interested party, raised a clear triable issue. The lower court erred in granting summary judgment, as the matter required a full...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 1685 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Provincial Insurance Co. Ltd; Respondent: Diners Club Africa Ltd; Defendant: Peter G. Kamau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 197 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Triable Issues, Striking Out Defence
- 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
Provincial Insurance Co. Ltd
Appellant
Diners Club Africa Ltd
Respondent
Peter G. Kamau
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lower court erred in granting summary judgment against the appellant.
- 2 Whether the defence raised triable issues that warranted a full hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court found that the appellant's defence, which asserted that it had settled all charges for the corporate card and denied liability for charges on a personal card issued to the interested party, raised a clear triable issue. The lower court erred in granting summary judgment, as the matter required a full hearing to resolve the factual disputes. The summary procedure should only be invoked in cases that are plain and obvious, which was not the case here. The trial magistrate misapplied the law by relying on inapplicable precedent and failing to recognize the existence of a bona fide triable issue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the summary judgment was set aside, and the...
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant both in the High Court and the lower court.
- The lower court's judgment is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL 197 OF 1998
PROVINCIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD ………….……… APPELLANT
VERSUS
DINERS CLUB AFRICA LTD …………………………. RESPONDENT
AND
PETER G. KAMAU …………………….……… INTERESTED PARTY
(An Appeal from the Ruling of B. Rashid, SRM in
Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s Court Civil Suit No. 1372 of 1995
delivered on 25th April, 1997).
JUDGMENT
By an Amended Plaint dated 8th July, 1996 and filed in the lower court on 9th July, 1996, the Respondent (Plaintiff in the lower court) claimed the sum of Kshs.99,638. 80 from the Appellant and the Interested Party being charges incurred by them arising from the use of credit cards issued by the Respondent. The Appellant denied the charges, stating clearly in the defence that the Appellant had applied for one corporate card for use by the Interested Party, and had settled the charges in full in respect of that card. According to them the sum claimed related to a personal card issued to the Interested Party without the knowledge and authority of the Appellant, and in respect of which the Interested Party was personally liable.
Despite this clear defence, the 1st Respondent applied for Summary Judgment under Order 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules, on the grounds that the Defence was a “sham”. The lower court agreed with the Respondent and in a brief, eight-line Ruling, entered Summary Judgment for the Respondent. It is against that Judgment that this appeal has been preferred. The only issue is whether the court was correct in entering Summary Judgment against the Appellant.
Summary procedure is a radical remedy and a court of law should be slow in resorting to this procedure which can only be applicable in plain, clear and obvious cases. In D. T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd vs Muchina(1982) KLR. 1 at p. 9 Madan JA (as he then was) said:
“The court ought to act very cautiously and carefully and consider all facts of the case without embarking upon a trial thereof before dismissing a case for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action or being otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. At this stage the court ought not to deal with any merits of the case for that is a function solely reserved for the judge at the trial as the court itself is not usually fully informed so as to deal with the merits without discovery, without oral evidence tested by cross-examination in the ordinary way.”
Although Justice Madan said this in respect of an application for striking out a plaint, it would equally apply to an application to strike out a defence as was the case in the present appeal.
Now, was this a clear case where summary procedure could be invoked? In my view, definitely not. In its replying affidavit to the summary judgment application, the Appellant pointed out clearly how it had settled the bills in respect of its corporate card, and how the Interested Party was responsible personally in respect of a card issued to him personally. That to me is clearly a triable issue that could not have possibly been decided in a summary manner. The trial magistrate wrongly relied on the case of Zola vs Ralli Bros. Ltd(1969) E A 691 where the Court of Appeal held that the fact that a defendant might have a claim to contribution against another person did not entitle him leave to defend. Those facts are inapplicable to this case. Here, there is no claim for contribution. The Appellant had, for reasons explained in its deposition, denied liability, and was fully entitled to a hearing on merit.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed with costs, both here and in the lower court. The lower court’s Judgment is set aside and the Appellant is given unconditional leave to defend.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 16th day of September, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM
JUDGE