ELIJAH BARASA WEPUKHULU V MUNIR OMAR & 2 OTHERS [2005] [2005] KEHC 701 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 701
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 701 (KLR)
- Decided
- 3 November 2005
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from an original trial judgmentCoramJ. K. SERGON
Holding
The suit against the 3rd defendant is ordered struck out and dismissed with costs to the 3rd defendant.
Facts
The 1st and 2nd defendants purchased a motor vehicle on hire purchase terms from the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff, the 1st and 2nd defendants sold the vehicle to the plaintiff without disclosing the outstanding loan. The plaintiff sued the 3rd defendant to block the repossession of the vehicle.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff has a cause of action against the 3rd defendant.
- Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants have paid an amount equivalent to the percentage set out under Section 15 of the Hire Purchase Act.
Reasoning
The plaintiff has no privity of contract with the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant is not bound to supply the plaintiff with statements of accounts regarding the outstanding debt.
Outcome
Dismissed
Orders
- The suit against the 3rd defendant is ordered struck out and dismissed with costs to the 3rd defendant.
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Hire Purchase Act
- Civil Procedure Act
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.
Loading judgment…