[2019] KEHC 7354 (KLR)
The court held that it would be premature to strike out the 4th respondent (Equity Bank Limited) from the proceedings at this stage. The matters raised in the supporting affidavit by the 4th respondent are issues that should be addressed in its defence to the main petition, not as grounds for striking out. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 7354 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Zablon Ogutu Siro; Respondent: District Criminal Investigating Office Masaba South Sub-County; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Equity Bank Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyamira
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 5 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- EM Muchoki
- Legal Topics
- Joinder and Misjoinder of Parties, Right to Fair Hearing, Striking Out of Parties
- 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
Zablon Ogutu Siro
Petitioner
District Criminal Investigating Office Masaba South Sub-County
Respondent
Director of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Equity Bank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 4th respondent (Equity Bank Limited) is wrongly enjoined in the proceedings and should be struck out at this stage.
- 2 Whether the grounds raised by the 4th respondent are sufficient to warrant its removal from the petition before the hearing of the main petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it would be premature to strike out the 4th respondent (Equity Bank Limited) from the proceedings at this stage. The matters raised in the supporting affidavit by the 4th respondent are issues that should be addressed in its defence to the main petition, not as grounds for striking out. The application to remove the 4th respondent is therefore dismissed, and the party remains enjoined in the proceedings until the substantive hearing and determination of the petition.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 30th November 2018 by the 4th respondent to be struck out of the proceedings is dismissed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYAMIRA
PETITION NO. 5 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS
UNDER ARTICLES 3, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 35 AND 49 OF THE CONSTITUTION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OFRIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES 2012
BETWEEN
ZABLON OGUTU SIRO............................................................PETITIONER
=VRS=
1. DISTRICT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING OFFICE
MASABA SOUTHSUB-COUNTY...................................1ST RESPONDENT
2. DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.....2ND RESPONDENT
3. HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL....................................3RD RESPONDENT
4. EQUITY BANK LIMITED...........................................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
Before me is an application by the 4th respondent seeking to be struck out of these proceedings on the grounds that it has no interest in the matter, that it is wrongly enjoined in the proceedings and that it is in the interest of justice that its name be struck out.
In the affidavit in support of the application, the 4th respondent’s operations Manager deposes that the petitioner indeed had an account with the 4th respondent at its Keroka Branch to which his pension and gratuity were to be paid. He deposes that the 4th respondent did not disclose any information concerning that account to third parties but that the petitioner himself contacted one Nyamweya to process his pension and that upon receiving a complaint by the petitioner, the 4th respondent investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the lien on his account was mistakenly lodged and having resolved the issue the petitioner managed to access his funds. It is further deposed that the 4th respondent had no part to play in the search at the petitioner’s home by the police and that in view of the foregoing the 4th respondent is wrongly enjoined and its name should be struck out.
The application is not opposed and counsel for the petitioner/respondent did not attend the hearing although there is a hearing notice in regard to this application which his firm caused to be served upon the Advocates for the other respondents. Be that as it may, I have considered the application, the grounds thereof as well as the supporting affidavit and I am of the view that it would be premature to strike out the 4th respondent from the proceedings at this stage. Whatever is raised in the affidavit ought to be in defence to the petition. Accordingly, the application dated 30th November 2018 is dismissed. Costs shall be in the cause.
Signed, dated and delivered in Nyamira this 23rd day of May 2019.
E. N. MAINA
JUDGE