[2018] KEHC 2402 (KLR)
The court determined that while jurisdictional objections are fundamental, it is within the court's discretion to address them together with other objections and the substantive application for efficient use of judicial resources. The court upheld previous case management directions as best suited for proportional...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 2402 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Spedag Interfreight Kenya Limited; Plaintiff: Spedag Interfreight Tanzania Limited; Defendant: Jyoti Structures Limited; Defendant: Jyoti Structures Kenya Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 22 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Case Management Directions
- Outcome
- Previous directions on case management upheld; matter to proceed as earlier directed.
- Judges
- CA Otieno
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Case Management, Directions, Application Opposition
- 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
Spedag Interfreight Kenya Limited
Plaintiff
Spedag Interfreight Tanzania Limited
Plaintiff
Jyoti Structures Limited
Defendant
Jyoti Structures Kenya Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Case Management Directions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should determine the preliminary objection on jurisdiction separately or together with the substantive application.
- 2 Whether the previous directions on case management should be upheld for expeditious disposal of the matter.
- 3 Whether the defendants' conduct affects the court's application of the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that while jurisdictional objections are fundamental, it is within the court's discretion to address them together with other objections and the substantive application for efficient use of judicial resources. The court upheld previous case management directions as best suited for proportional and expeditious resolution of the dispute. The conduct of the defendants, though not exemplary, did not sway the court from applying the law impartially. The matter is to proceed as earlier directed, with all objections treated as oppositions to the application by the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
Previous directions on case management upheld; matter to proceed as earlier directed.
Orders
- The matter shall proceed as earlier directed by the court.
- All objections, including the preliminary objection on jurisdiction, shall be treated as oppositions to the application by the plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL CASE NO. 22 OF 2018
SPEDAG INTERFREIGHT KENYA LIMITED.................1ST PLAINTIFF
SPEDAG INTERFREIGHT TANZANIA LIMITED.........2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JYOTI STRUCTURES LIMITED.....................................1ST DEFENDANT
JYOTI STRUCTURES KENYA LIMITED.....................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
NO. 1
1. Ultimately the conduct of proceedings and case management falls upon the shoulders of the court and cannot be delegated even to the parties If the overriding objectives of the court have to be met. That jurisdiction is everything is not doubt here just as I appreciate that the dictate that makes finding on jurisdiction dealt with fast and first does mean that the court must separate it from all else even if to do that would be to employ judicial resource in time in a less efficient manner.
2. I appreciate the law to say that a preliminary objection is one of the ways to oppose an application. That to me means that if there be filed an objection to a suit or an application and the same goes to jurisdiction nothing stops the court from taking argument on the application together with the objection and rendering one ruling which may however commence with a determination whether the court has jurisdiction. I believe none of the principles applicable on handling jurisdictional questions has escaped my mind and I will strive not to be escaped in this matter. I will treat the objection to the application dated 10/10/2018 together with any other in the file with the seriousness all deserve but shall treat them as oppositions to the application by the plaintiff.
3. On the procedure on how to show cause, once gain ask counsel to appreciate that this is a court of law and it can only apply the law not whim or caprice. None should doubt that the law will ever be applied in this matter.
4. All considered, the previous directions given in this file resting with those of yesterday is what the court considers best suited to have the dispute herein dealt with proportionately and expeditiously and the court upholds those directions and now directs that the matter proceeds as earlier on directed.
4. I would have considered dealing with the application dated 10/10/2018 separately had the plaintiff sought time to reply to it but the plaintiff says he can answer to it on pure points of law. In coming to this conclusion and directions, it is not lost to court that the conduct of the defendants have not been anywhere near their obligations to court under section 1A(3) but that shall not sway me in applying my mind and best to resolve the dispute before me today.
Dated, signed and delivered this 12th day of October 2018.
P J O OTIENO
JUDGE