[2019] KEHC 9598 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 9598 (KLR)

The court found that when Joseph Irungu Mwangi Advocate commissioned the plaintiff’s verifying affidavit on 4th July 2014, he was not on record for the plaintiff, who was acting in person at the time. The advocate only came on record for the plaintiff later, on 15th October 2018. Therefore, there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 9598 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Wanyee Roki; Defendant: K-Rep Bank Limited; Defendant: City Council of Nairobi; Defendant: David Waweru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Verifying Affidavit, Commissioner for Oaths, Procedure Irregularities
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Preliminary Objection Verifying Affidavit Commissioner for Oaths Procedure Irregularities

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Wanyee Roki

Plaintiff

K-Rep Bank Limited

Defendant

City Council of Nairobi

Defendant

David Waweru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the verifying affidavit sworn on 4th July 2014 offends Section 4(1) of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap 15 Laws of Kenya.
  2. 2 Whether the advocate who commissioned the affidavit was on record for the plaintiff at the material time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that when Joseph Irungu Mwangi Advocate commissioned the plaintiff’s verifying affidavit on 4th July 2014, he was not on record for the plaintiff, who was acting in person at the time. The advocate only came on record for the plaintiff later, on 15th October 2018. Therefore, there was no contravention of Section 4(1) of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap 15. The preliminary objection by the 2nd Defendant was without merit and was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • Objection number 2 in the Preliminary Objection dated 21st November 2018 filed by the 2nd Defendant is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.