C K v A R C & another [2015] KEHC 2037 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 2037
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 2037 (KLR)
- Decided
- 2 October 2015
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeDivorcePostureApplication to strike out 2nd respondent from proceedingsCoramW. MUSYOKA
Holding
Application dismissed with costs to the petitioner
Facts
Petitioner resides in property owned by 2nd respondent, a company owned by 1st respondent. Petitioner claims 2nd respondent is a vehicle for 1st respondent to own matrimonial property. 2nd respondent's shareholders are 1st respondent's advocates and friends.
Issues
- Whether 2nd respondent should be a party in the proceedings
- Whether 2nd respondent's shareholders are advocates for 1st respondent
Reasoning
2nd respondent was not in the initial pleadings but was introduced through amendment. Petitioner claims 2nd respondent is a vehicle for 1st respondent to own matrimonial property, but cannot pierce corporate veil at interlocutory stage. Petitioner seeks declaration of rights in property registered in 2nd respondent's name, which must be heard by 2nd respondent.
Outcome
Application dismissed
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…