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

SUKHDEV SINGH LALY V GERALD RICHARD KAFEERO & ANOTHER [2012] KEHC 1351 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 1351 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1351
Citation
[2012] KEHC 1351 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication for determination of Plaintiff's suit dismissedCoramHonourable Madan
Holding

The Plaintiff's suit is not frivolous, scandalous, or vexatious, and the Defendants' application to dismiss the suit is denied. The Defendants are ordered to meet the costs of the application.

Facts

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendants alleging breach of a sale agreement. The Defendants filed two applications which were dismissed, and now filed an application to dismiss the Plaintiff's suit as frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's suit is frivolous, scandalous, and vexatious
  2. Whether the Defendants' Counterclaim can be decided by summary judgment

Reasoning

The court found that the Plaintiff had a valid claim and that dismissing the suit would deny him a fair trial. The court also ruled that the Defendants' Counterclaim cannot be decided by summary judgment.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's suit is not dismissed
  • The Defendants are ordered to meet the costs of the application

Authorities cited

Legislation (5)
  • Civil Procedure Rules
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Order 2 Rule 15
  • Order 36 Rule 1
  • Order 7 Rule 17
Cases cited (3)
  • Joseph Okumu Simiyu vs East Afrikan Building Society and Another (2005) eKLR
  • Raphael Mugwanja Warari vs Olekejuado County Council and 2 Others (2012) eKLR
  • Continental Butchery Ltd. vs Nthiwa (1989) KLR 573
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