[2006] KEHC 2877 (KLR)
The court found that although the defendants delayed in filing and serving their defence, the delay was explained and not motivated by bad faith. The dispute among the defendants and directors, which led to the withholding of documents, was a reasonable explanation for the delay. The court emphasized that its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2877 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Winfred Waruguru Mepukori; Plaintiff: Kenneth Moipan Mepukori (Personal Representative of George Mepukori Pertet); Defendant: Kawaboiya Investments Co. Limited; Defendant: James Matheka; Defendant: John Wangongu; Defendant: Macharia Moregi; Defendant: Mwethya Women Group; Defendant: Christine Gathoni; Defendant: Kanga Mugo; Defendant: Sera Mulwa; Defendant: Tom Musoki Mwatu; Defendant: Kalulu Mwatu; Defendant: Philip Mwatu; Defendant: Joel Koli; Defendant: Bosco Muoki; Defendant: Muoki's Brother; Defendant: Stephen Muchai; Defendant: Nzioka Ngui; Defendant: Mukulu Kilonzo; Defendant: Joel Mbai; Defendant: Muiruri Ngugi; Defendant: Thuku Wangondu; Defendant: Muoki Wambua; Defendant: Kikondu Muindi; Defendant: Shem Makuthi; Defendant: Willy Maiko; Defendant: Mutisya Michael; Defendant: George Gachie; Defendant: Kamuya Kaunga; Defendant: Kavoi Kikwau; Defendant: Masavi Kavoi; Defendant: Katumbi Mutua; Defendant: Peter Mbaluto; Defendant: Stephen Mucheru; Defendant: Mutava Ikii; Defendant: Joseph Muinde
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1229 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
- Outcome
- application dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out of Defence, Late Filing of Defence, Service of Pleadings, Interlocutory Judgment, Land Disputes
- 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
Winfred Waruguru Mepukori
Plaintiff
Kenneth Moipan Mepukori (Personal Representative of George Mepukori Pertet)
Plaintiff
Kawaboiya Investments Co. Limited
Defendant
James Matheka
Defendant
John Wangongu
Defendant
Macharia Moregi
Defendant
Mwethya Women Group
Defendant
Christine Gathoni
Defendant
Kanga Mugo
Defendant
Sera Mulwa
Defendant
Tom Musoki Mwatu
Defendant
Kalulu Mwatu
Defendant
Philip Mwatu
Defendant
Joel Koli
Defendant
Bosco Muoki
Defendant
Muoki's Brother
Defendant
Stephen Muchai
Defendant
Nzioka Ngui
Defendant
Mukulu Kilonzo
Defendant
Joel Mbai
Defendant
Muiruri Ngugi
Defendant
Thuku Wangondu
Defendant
Muoki Wambua
Defendant
Kikondu Muindi
Defendant
Shem Makuthi
Defendant
Willy Maiko
Defendant
Mutisya Michael
Defendant
George Gachie
Defendant
Kamuya Kaunga
Defendant
Kavoi Kikwau
Defendant
Masavi Kavoi
Defendant
Katumbi Mutua
Defendant
Peter Mbaluto
Defendant
Stephen Mucheru
Defendant
Mutava Ikii
Defendant
Joseph Muinde
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants' defence should be struck out for late filing and service.
- 2 Whether interlocutory judgment should be entered in favour of the plaintiffs due to procedural default.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the defendants delayed in filing and serving their defence, the delay was explained and not motivated by bad faith. The dispute among the defendants and directors, which led to the withholding of documents, was a reasonable explanation for the delay. The court emphasized that its primary function is to determine the rights of the parties and not to punish them for procedural errors. Striking out the defence would be disproportionate and contrary to the interests of justice, especially in a land dispute where substantive rights are at stake. Therefore, the application to strike out the defence was dismissed, but the defendants were ordered to bear the costs of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff
Orders
- The application to strike out the defendants' defence is dismissed.
- The defendants shall bear the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
52 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
(NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE 1229 OF 2004
WINFRED WARUGURU MEPUKORI) ……..........….PLAINTIFFS
KENNETH MOIPAN MEPUKORI (Personal )
Representative of GEORGE MEPUKORI PERTET)
VERSUS
1. KAWABOIYA INVESTMENTS CO.LIMITED….…DEFENDANT
2. JAMES MATHEKA ………….........................….…DEFENDANT
3. JOHN WANGONGU………….........................….…DEFENDANT
4. MACHARIA MOREGI………….......................….…DEFENDANT
5. MWETHYA WOMEN GROUP…………............….…DEFENDANT
6. CHRISTINE GATHONI………….......................….…DEFENDANT
7. KANGA MUGO………….................................….…DEFENDANT
8. SERA MULWA ………….................................….…DEFENDANT
9. TOM MUSOKI MWATU…………......................….…DEFENDANT
10. KALULU MWATU…………..............................….…DEFENDANT
11. PHILIP MWATU…………................................….…DEFENDANT
12. JOEL KOLI…………....................................….…DEFENDANT
13. BOSCO MUOKI………….............................….…DEFENDANT
14. MUOKI’S BROTHER…………......................….…DEFENDANT
15. STEPHEN MUCHAI…………........................….…DEFENDANT
16. NZIOKA NGUI…………..............................….…DEFENDANT
17. MUKULU KILONZO …………......................….…DEFENDANT
18. JOEL MBAI…………....................................….…DEFENDANT
19. MUIRURI NGUGI…………............................….…DEFENDANT
20. THUKU WANGONDU…………......................….…DEFENDANT
21. MUOKI WAMBUA…………..........................….…DEFENDANT
22. KIKONDU MUINDI………….........................….…DEFENDANT
23. SHEM MAKUTHI…………...........................….…DEFENDANT
24. WILLY MAIKO…………...............................….…DEFENDANT
25. MUTISYA MICHAEL…………......................….…DEFENDANT
26. GEORGE GACHIE…………........................….…DEFENDANT
27. KAMUYA KAUNGA…………......................….…DEFENDANT
28. KAVOI KIKWAU…………............................….…DEFENDANT
29. MASAVI KAVOI………….............................….…DEFENDANT
30. KATUMBI MUTUA…………..........................….…DEFENDANT
31. PETER MBALUTO………….........................….…DEFENDANT
32. STEPHEN MUCHERU…………....................….…DEFENDANT
33. MUTAVA IKII …………................................….…DEFENDANT
34. JOSEPH MUINDE…………........................….…DEFENDANT
RULING
The plaintiff by way of this Chamber Summons expressed to be brought under Order VIII Rule 1(2) and Order VI Rule 13(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeks orders that the Defendants defence filed herein on 10th March 2005 be struck out and interlocutory judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiffs. He also prays for the costs of this application.
The application is based by grounds as stated on the body of the application and supported by an affidavit sworn by counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Kaai counsel for the applicant submitted that the defendant after being served with summons entered appearance but did not file the defence upon the plaintiff until after 3 months and after filing the defence the same was not served until 13 days later.
This is conceded by the defendants counsel who in reply submitted that he had problems to trace all the defendant who had a dispute between them and the directors which led the directors to withhold vital documents. But now the dispute has been resolved and the documents have been released by the directors. He urged the court now that the defence has been filed and served to disregard the procedural technicalities and consider the suit on its own merits.
The dispute in this suit involves land. Having perused both the plaint and the defence I am of a strong view that the defendant ought to be given opportunity to defend the claim bearing in mind that the object of the courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes which they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance to their rights.
The application to strike out the defendant’s defence is dismissed. But the defendant will bear the costs of this application.
Dated at Nairobi this 7th day of February 2006.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE