[2008] KEHC 1825 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1825 (KLR)

The court held that the plaintiff had not followed the proper procedure required before seeking to strike out the defendant's defence for non-compliance with discovery. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had made formal attempts to secure discovery, such as issuing notices and filing a written...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1825 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Samvo Limited; Defendant: Delta Haulage Services Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 100 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence for Non Compliance With Discovery Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Discovery Non Compliance, Striking Out Defence, Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Discovery Non Compliance Striking Out Defence Injunctive Relief Ownership Dispute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samvo Limited

Plaintiff

Delta Haulage Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence for Non Compliance With Discovery Order

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's defence should be struck out for failure to comply with a discovery order under Order X rule 20 Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff followed the correct procedure before seeking to strike out the defence for non-compliance with discovery obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff had not followed the proper procedure required before seeking to strike out the defendant's defence for non-compliance with discovery. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had made formal attempts to secure discovery, such as issuing notices and filing a written application to compel discovery, as required by Order 10 rule IIA(3) Civil Procedure Rules. The court emphasized that only after such steps are taken and the defendant still fails to comply can an application under Order X rule 20 Civil Procedure Rules be entertained. The absence of evidence showing deliberate refusal by the defendant to comply with discovery obligations meant...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application to strike out the defendant's defence is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Parties are to comply with Order 10 rule IIA Civil Procedure Rules and follow the outlined procedure for discovery.