SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Frankline Muthomi Njogu v National Hospital Insurance Fund Sacco Society Limited [2021] KECPT 242 (KLR)

[2021] KECPT 242 (KLR) Co-operative Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Co-operative Tribunal
Case number
242
Citation
[2021] KECPT 242 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for striking out the Respondent's defenceCoramHON., KLR. Madan
Holding

The court strikes out the Respondent's defence and orders judgment in favor of the Claimant.

Facts

Frankline Muthomi Njogu is a member of National Hospital Insurance Fund Sacco Society Limited and has made monthly contributions. The Respondent filed a defence admitting the share capital but disputing the refund of Kshs.20,500/=.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's defence raises a triable issue
  2. Whether the Respondent's defence is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court

Reasoning

The Respondent's defence is purely a denial of the refund of Kshs.20,500/=. It does not raise any triable issues.

Outcome

Judgment in favor of the Claimant

Orders

  • That the Respondent's defence be struck out
  • That judgment be entered in favor of the Claimant against the Respondent as prayed for in the Statement of Claim
  • That the Respondent pay costs of the Application

Remedies

  • Summary Judgment

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 21
  • Order 51 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules
  • Order 36 Rule (1) (1) Civil Procedure Rules
  • Order 2 Rule 15 Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (2)
  • DT Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited - vs- Joseph Mbaria Muchina and Another CA 37 of 1978 [1980]eKLR
  • Transcend Media Group Limited - vs- IEBC[2015] eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case