Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Appeal No. 218 of 2004· [2014] KECA 112 (KLR)

The Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Kenya Medical Association Housing Co-operative Society Limited

Court of Appeal
3 October 2014
1,235 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a negligence claim against a bank was based on contract, not tort, so the three-year time limit did not apply.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory appeal arose from a ruling of the High Court (Azangalala, J.) dated 6th February 2004 in H.C.C.C. No. 34 of 2002, dismissing the Co-operative Bank of Kenya's chamber summons under Order 6 rule 13(1)(a) and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to strike out Kenya Medical Association Housing Co-operative Society's plaint for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The bank contended that the plaint, which alleged negligence in releasing a bridging-finance cheque of Sh.18,750,000 directly to the vendor Jackim Ltd, sounded in tort and was therefore time-barred under Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act, the suit having been filed on 19th March 2002 more than three years after the alleged negligence came to the respondent's knowledge in May 1998. The respondent argued that the same facts gave rise to causes of action in both contract and tort, relying on Kenya Cargo Handling Services Ltd v David Ugwang and Halsbury's Laws of England for the substance-over-form test. The Court of Appeal (Waki, Karanja and Mwera, JJ.A) affirmed the High Court, holding that the letter of offer of 1st September 1997, its acceptance and the disbursement of the loan created a contractual relationship imposing a duty of care in contract between banker and customer; consequently the action was founded on contract, not time-barred, and there was no prejudice to the bank if the suit proceeded to trial. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the cause of action lay in tort or contract for purposes of limitation

Holding

The High Court rightly looked at the substance of the transaction and found the relationship between banker and borrower contractual; Section 4(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act did not bar the suit

Reasoning

The appellant bank issued a letter of offer of a loan which the respondent accepted and the loan was disbursed, creating a contract imposing a duty of care in contract between banker and customer on the execution of payment instructions. Following the authorities cited, including Kenya Cargo Handling Services Ltd v David Ugwang, the same set of facts may give rise to causes of action in both tort and contract, and substance rather than pleading form governs the classification. Since the relationship was contractual, the 3-year tort limitation period under Section 4(2) did not avail the appellant as a defence.

p. 2
02

Whether the plaint should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action

Holding

The Court declined to strike out the plaint; it found no prejudice to the appellant if the suit proceeds to hearing in the High Court

Reasoning

This was an interlocutory appeal against dismissal of a chamber summons under Order 6 rule 13(1)(a) and 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking to strike out the plaint as time-barred. The Court, having found the cause of action contractual and not time-barred, and considering the authorities placed before it and the absence of prejudice to the appellant if the suit proceeded to full hearing, dismissed the appeal. The striking-out application thus failed and the suit remains for trial.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • In deciding whether an action is founded on contract or tort, the court looks at the substance of the action, not the form stated in the pleadings; the same facts may give rise to causes of action in both contract and tort

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal was dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya, Commercial Division at Nairobi
H.C.C.C. No. 34 of 2002
Jurisdiction invoked
First appeal from the High Court under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (the judgment does not cite a specific provision)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "The Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Kenya Medical Association Housing Co-operative Society Limited", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Appeal No. 218 of 2004. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/112/eng@2014-10-03

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