[2019] KEHC 8712 (KLR)
The court found that the defence raised triable issues, including whether the suit was time barred and whether acquittal alone suffices for a claim of malicious prosecution. The defence could not be considered a sham, and the drastic remedy of striking out pleadings should only be used in clear and obvious cases....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 8712 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Stephen Kinyanjui Kibunja t/a Kibunja & Associates; Defendant: The Commissioner of Police; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 332 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- BT Jaden
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Malicious Prosecution, Summary Judgment, Limitation of Actions
- 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
Stephen Kinyanjui Kibunja t/a Kibunja & Associates
Applicant
The Commissioner of Police
Defendant
The Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defence filed should be struck out as a sham and judgment entered for the applicant.
- 2 Whether the defence raises triable issues warranting a full hearing.
- 3 Whether the suit is time barred and whether acquittal alone establishes malicious prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defence raised triable issues, including whether the suit was time barred and whether acquittal alone suffices for a claim of malicious prosecution. The defence could not be considered a sham, and the drastic remedy of striking out pleadings should only be used in clear and obvious cases. Since the defence presented arguable points, the application to strike it out lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 18th September, 2007 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL DIVISION
HIGH COURTCIVIL APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2007
STEPHEN KINYANJUI KIBUNJAT/A KIBUNJA & ASSOCIATES......APPLICANT
VERSUS
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE.................................................1ST DEFENDANT
THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ..................................................2nd DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application dated 18th September, 2007 seeks orders that
a) That the defence filed herein be struck out.
b) That judgment be entered as prayed in the plaint and the matter do proceed for assessment of damages.
c) That the costs of this application be provided for
2. It is stated in the affidavit in support that the Applicant was arrested and prosecuted in a criminal case over tramped up charges. That the Applicant was finally acquitted and that the defence filed herein is a sham meant to delay the trial of this suit.
3. On 13th October, 2016 when the application proceeded to hearing, no response had been filed Respondents and nor were they present. The application was heard exparte.
4. A statement of defence dated 7th May, 2007 herein denies any malicious prosecution and states that an acquittal does not provide the Plaintiff with a cause of action for malicious prosecution. It is also averred that the suit herein is time barred. These are triable issues. The defence is therefore not a sham.
5. The principles of the law applicable in an application for the striking out of pleadings were well set out in the case of D.T.Dobie &Company (Kenya) Limited v Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another [1980] eKLR. Although the court has an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss a case which is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process, it’s a drastic remedy which ought to be exercised sparingly only in plain and obvious cases when it is clear that the action cannot succeed or is in some way an abuse of the court process. The parties cannot be driven out of the seat of judgment unless the case is unarguable.
6. As stated by Madan, J in the case of D.T.Dobie (supra):
“A court of justice should aim at sustaining a suit rather than terminating it by summary dismissal. Normally a law suit is for pursuing it.
No suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action, and is so weak as to be beyond redemption and incurable by amendment. If a suit shows a mere semblance of a cause of action, provided it can be injected with real life by amendment, it ought to be allowed to go forward for a court of justice ought not to act in darkness without the full facts of a case before it.”
7. In the upshot, I find no merits in the application and dismiss the same with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi this 7th day of March, 2019
B. THURANIRA JADEN
JUDGE