Raghbir Singh Chatte v National Bank of Kenya Limited [1996] KECA 99 (KLR)

The court relied on its own decision in Magunga General Stores, where Platt JA held that a mere denial is not a sufficient defence in an action for a debt because the defendant must give some reason why the money is not owed. It also drew on the Supreme Court Practice commentary on the corresponding English rule, Order 18 rule 13, enforcing the cardinal principle that every allegation of fact must be specifically traversed or is deemed admitted. The appellant's defence contained only empty general traverses of the primary facts plus an evasive alternative plea of payment without particulars.

Akiwumi JA analysed Sir Kenneth O'Connor's remarks in Shah, noting they were obiter, and Morton LJ's judgment in Lancaster Radiators, which expressly reserved the question of a defence consisting simply of one paragraph. Adkins was also distinguishable because there was no application to strike out on the ground of no reasonable defence. Halsbury's statement that general traverses have become common practice rests on those same distinguishable authorities.

Counsel cited Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure for the proposition that inconsistent pleadings are not prohibited. The court accepted that inconsistent pleadings are generally permissible but adopted Mulla's qualification that what is prohibited are pleadings setting up inconsistent and embarrassing claims or defences. The appellant's alternative plea that any overdraft extended (which was denied) had been fully paid, without stating how or when, was spurious and embarrassing.

The appellant argued the judge wrongly invoked the inherent jurisdiction under section 3A. The court examined the ruling and found the judge decided the striking-out on the pleadings alone, excluding affidavit evidence, and that the reference to section 3A concerned only the separate, invalid grounds under rule 13(1)(b) and (c). The appeal ground therefore failed.

The court acknowledged the principle, drawn from D. T. Dobie, that striking out requires extreme caution and clear and obvious cases. It then measured the defence against that standard: it was a spurious and evasive general traverse of clearly pleaded primary facts with an evasive alternative plea of payment without particulars. On that material the judge neither took extraneous matters into account nor applied wrong principles, so his discretion was properly exercised.