[2008] KEHC 3572 (KLR)
The court found that although the two applications sought similar orders, they related to different defences: the first to the original defence and the second to the amended defence and counterclaim. Therefore, the applications were not res subjudice. Furthermore, the court held that an objection based on the res...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3572 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Robert Wamithi; Respondent: Juma Masudi Omari
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 44 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Res Subjudice, Striking Out Pleadings
- 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
Robert Wamithi
Plaintiff
Juma Masudi Omari
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's application dated 16.10.2007 is an abuse of court process due to the existence of a similar unprosecuted application dated 7.3.2007.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection based on the res subjudice principle is properly raised.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the two applications sought similar orders, they related to different defences: the first to the original defence and the second to the amended defence and counterclaim. Therefore, the applications were not res subjudice. Furthermore, the court held that an objection based on the res subjudice principle must be raised under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and not by way of a preliminary objection. Consequently, the preliminary objection lacked merit and was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. The court also directed that both applications be heard together to avoid further delay.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
- Both applications dated 7.3.2007 and 16.10.2007 to be argued together.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
13 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
Civil Case 44 of 2006
ROBERT WAMITHI …………………………….…..…………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JUMA MASUDI OMARI ………………………...………RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
By an application dated 16. 10. 2007, the plaintiff sought to have the amended defence and counterclaim dated 21st September 2007 to be struck out. When the aforesaid application came up for interpartes hearing, Mr. Kadima, learned advocate for the defendant, raised a preliminary point to the effect that the plaintiff had filed a similar application dated 7th March 2007 which application remains unprosecuted upto date. Mr. Kadima urged this court to strike out the summons dated 16. 10. 2007 for the reason that the same was filed in abuse of the court process.
Mr.M Ndegwa, learned advocate for the plaintiff urged this court to dismiss the preliminary objection on the basis that it has no merit but the same is geared towards delaying this matter. It is stated that the application dated 7. 3.2007 was in respect of the defence dated 28. 6.2006 while the application dated 16. 10. 2007 is against the amended defence dated 21. 03. 2007 which in any case was filed without leave of court.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsels. I have also taken the liberty to peruse the two applications and the pleadings. It is clear that the Chamber Summons dated 7th March 2007 seek to have the defence dated 28. 6.2006 to be struck out whereas the summons dated 16. 10. 2007 seeks to have the amended defence and the counter-claim dated 21st September 2007 to be struck out. In my view though the two applications seek for similar orders they are not res subjudice, because they relate to two separate defences. In any case an objection based on res subjudice principle must come within the provisions of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and not by way of a preliminary objection. In the end I see no merit in the preliminary objection, it is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. To prevent the further procrastination in the matter further, I direct that the two summonses be argued together.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 28th Day of March 2008.
J.K. SERGON
J U D G E
In open court in the presence of Miss Kanaga h/b for Mr. Kadima for the Respondent and Mr. Ndegwa for the applicant.