Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Appeal No. 35 of 2000

Yaya Towers Limited v Trade Bank Limited (In Liquidation)

Court of Appeal
27 October 2000
ALA.A. LakhaPhilip Kiptoo TunoiP.K. TunoiMKM. Keiwua
4,391 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal threw out a Kshs 195 million bank claim because the bank's own court documents contradicted its case, showing weak pleadings can end lawsuits early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This Court of Appeal judgment arises from the long-running Yaya Centre litigation. Trade Bank Limited (in liquidation), as plaintiff, sued Yaya Towers Limited for Kshs 195,684,223.30, pleading alternatively an overdraft on Account No 569960, monies lent or paid on the defendant's request, and money had and received. Yaya Towers applied on 22nd October 1999 to strike out the plaint as frivolous and an abuse of process. Mbaluto J dismissed that application on 4th February 2000, and the defendant appealed. Lakha JA, writing the lead judgment, reviewed the law on summary striking-out, holding that while the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss abusive actions exists, it must be exercised sparingly and only in plain and obvious cases, without a mini-trial on affidavits. Crucially, the particulars furnished - specimen signature cards and account opening forms for the Yaya Centre Development Account - showed the account was opened and operated by the plaintiff's own officers, with no request by the defendant for any overdraft or loan. Since particulars bind the party giving them and a claim based on a request requires proof of both the act and the request, the essential ingredient could not be proved and the claim was unarguable and almost incontestably bad; its institution was an abuse of process. The judge's discretion was therefore vitiated. Tunoi JA concurred, holding the suit had no semblance of a cause of action incurable by amendment. Keiwua JA, in a separate judgment endorsing the DT Dobie test, found the factual basis clear and agreed the appeal should be allowed. The court unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the ruling, struck out the plaint and dismissed the suit with costs to the defendant, payable by the plaintiff's liquidator.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the learned judge erred in dismissing the appellant's application to strike out the plaint and dismiss the suit as frivolous or an abuse of the process of the court
  2. 2.Whether the particulars furnished showed any request by the defendant for the overdraft facility, monies lent or paid, or money had and received
  3. 3.Whether the plaintiff's pleaded cause of action was unarguable and bound to fail

Key legal issues

#
01

Scope of the summary jurisdiction to strike out a plaint as frivolous or an abuse of process

Holding

The jurisdiction exists but must be exercised sparingly and only in plain and obvious cases; it must not become a mini-trial on affidavits.

Reasoning

The court reviewed English and Kenyan authority establishing that the power to strike out is summary and should be exercised only in plain and obvious cases. Where the ground is frivolousness or abuse of process, evidence is admissible, but the defendant bears a heavy burden and may not conduct a protracted examination of documents and facts, which would usurp the trial judge's role.

p. 2
02

Effect of particulars failing to disclose an essential ingredient of the cause of action

Holding

Where the particulars show no request by the defendant, the essential ingredient cannot be proved and the claim is bound to fail.

Reasoning

The particulars relied on specimen signature cards and account opening forms for the Yaya Centre Development Account, opened by the plaintiff's own directors and officers, showing no request by the defendant for an overdraft or loan. Since particulars bind the party giving them, the plaintiff could not at trial prove a request not pleaded, so the claim was unarguable and its institution an abuse of process.

p. 4
03

Whether the superior court judge's discretion was wrongly exercised

Holding

The judge's discretion was vitiated by failure to appreciate that the request allegation was unsustainable, and the appellate court was bound to interfere.

Reasoning

The learned judge failed to appreciate that the allegation of a request by the defendant was ill-founded and unsupported by the admitted documents and particulars, rendering the action as pleaded unarguable. His discretion was therefore vitiated, leading to a conclusion plainly wrong, justifying appellate interference with the interlocutory ruling.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A plaintiff is entitled to pursue a claim however implausible unless the defendant demonstrates shortly and conclusively that it is bound to fail or is an abuse of process.
  • Particulars form part of the pleadings and bind the party furnishing them; no inconsistent case may be set up at trial.
  • Where a cause of action is based on a request by the defendant, the plaintiff must allege and prove both the act done and the request; one cannot be inferred from the other.
  • On an application to strike out for abuse of process or frivolousness, evidence is admissible; on no-reasonable-cause-of-action grounds the plaint's allegations are assumed true.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Appeal allowed with costs
  2. 2.Order of the superior court dated 4th February 2000 set aside
  3. 3.Plaintiff's plaint struck out and the suit dismissed with costs, including those of the striking out application, to be paid by the liquidator of the plaintiff to the defendant

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AL
majority

Wrote the judgment

Lead judgment. Set out the law on striking out pleadings, held the particulars disclosed no request by the defendant for the overdraft, rendering the claim unarguable and an abuse of process; would allow the appeal and strike out the plaint.

Once the point is argued, examined and considered it appears to me to be a simple, plain and obvious case and the plaintiff’s pleaded cause of action can, in my judgment, be properly characterized as unarguable or almost incontestably bad.p. 4
Philip Kiptoo Tunoi
concurring

Wrote the judgment

Agreed fully with Lakha JA; held the account was opened and operated by the respondent's employees without the appellant's authority, so the suit disclosed no reasonable cause of action curable by amendment.

As the suit is based on an overdraft extended to the appellant at its request, it is my view, that in these circumstance, it has no semblance of a cause of action and no amendment whatsoever can inject any life into it.p. 4
MK
concurring

Wrote the judgment

Wrote separately reviewing the affidavits; endorsed the DT Dobie test but found the factual basis clear, that the account had nothing to do with the appellant, and would allow the appeal and dismiss the suit.

I would in these circumstances allow the appeal with costs, set aside the ruling and ordes of the superior court and dismiss the suit in the superior court with costs to be paid by the liquidator of the respondent.p. 6
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Milimani Commercial Courts
HCCC No. 235 of 1998
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over the High Court (ruling and order of 4th February 2000)

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

Accordingly, I would allow the appeal with costs, set aside the order of the superior court given on 4th February, 2000 and substitute in its place an order that the plaintiff’s plaint be struck out and the suit be dismissed with costs (including those of the striking out application) to be paid by the liquidator of the plaintiff to the defendant as prayed in the defendant’s application in the superior court dated 22nd October, 1999.
p. 4Final orders - appeal allowed, plaint struck out, suit dismissed
No suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action, and is so weak as to be beyond redemption and incurable by amendment.
p. 6DT Dobie test for summary dismissal
It cannot be doubted that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss an action which is an abuse of the process of the court. It is a jurisdiction which ought to be sparingly exercised, and only in very exceptional cases.
p. 2Inherent jurisdiction over abuse of process
It is well settled that a statement of claim should not be struck out and the plaintiff driven from the judgment seat unless the case is unarguable.
p. 3Threshold for striking out
The suit obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action and the learned judge ought to have struck out the plaint and to dismiss the suit.
p. 4Tunoi JA's conclusion on the cause of action

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Claim amount inconsistently stated

minor

Keiwua JA's figure differs from the plaint

minor

Duplicate paragraph numbering in quoted affidavit

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (20)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Yaya Towers Limited v Trade Bank Limited (In Liquidation)", Case Analysis (2000). Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2000. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2000/427/eng@2000-10-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.