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

Kedong Ranch Ltd v Shadrack Mwangi Kamau & 23 others [2014] KEHC 1710 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 1710 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1710
Citation
[2014] KEHC 1710 (KLR)
Decided
3 October 2014
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureApplication to strike out pleadingsCoramL N WAITHAKA
Holding

The court declines to strike out the defendants' defence and counterclaim and directs the plaintiff to amend their plaint to bring the suit only against defendants who can fully participate.

Facts

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion seeking to strike out the defendants' defence and counterclaim due to their late filing and service, and the presence of deceased defendants.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants' defence and counterclaim should be struck out for being filed and served late and being aimed at prejudicing the fair trial of the suit.
  2. Whether the plaintiff's suit can proceed against deceased defendants.

Reasoning

The court finds that the defendants' defence and counterclaim were not filed and served late, and that the presence of deceased defendants does not automatically render the suit defective.

Outcome

The Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Orders

  • Decline to strike out the defendants' defence and counterclaim.
  • Direct the plaintiff to amend their plaint to bring the suit only against defendants who can fully participate.

Authorities cited

Legislation (4)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Order 7 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  • Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
Cases cited (1)
  • D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited V Muchina (1982) KLR
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