[2004] KEHC 121 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 121 (KLR)

The court found that the plaint, as currently drafted, did not disclose a reasonable or triable cause of action against the 4th Defendant. The judge determined that the 4th Defendant had no discernible interest in the properties referenced in the plaint and that the allegations against the 4th Defendant were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 121 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mwangangi & 9 others; Respondent: The Commissioner of Lands & 9 others; Defendant: 4th Defendant; Plaintiff: Plaintiffs
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 298B of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint Against 4th Defendant
Outcome
application allowed; plaint struck out as against 4th Defendant with costs
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Pleadings, Reasonable Cause of Action, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Striking Out of Pleadings Reasonable Cause of Action Abuse of Court Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mwangangi & 9 others

Applicant

The Commissioner of Lands & 9 others

Respondent

4th Defendant

Defendant

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Plaint Against 4th Defendant

  1. 1 Whether the plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 4th Defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the plaint as drafted is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaint, as currently drafted, did not disclose a reasonable or triable cause of action against the 4th Defendant. The judge determined that the 4th Defendant had no discernible interest in the properties referenced in the plaint and that the allegations against the 4th Defendant were insufficient to sustain a claim. Consequently, the plaint was struck out as against the 4th Defendant on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was frivolous and vexatious, and constituted an abuse of the court process.

Court Disposition

application allowed; plaint struck out as against 4th Defendant with costs

Orders

  • The plaint is struck out as against the 4th Defendant.
  • Costs of the application dated 1st December 2003 and of the suit are awarded to the 4th Defendant.