Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedHCCC No. 66 of 2015· [2017] KEELC 3798 (KLR)

Ruth Wakonyo Kabundu & another v Patrick Mukiri Kabundu [2017] KEELC 3798 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
31 August 2017
3,158 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court dismissed an attempt to throw out a family company dispute because the objection relied on affidavit facts, not pure points of law.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Ruth Wakonyo Kabundu and Kabundu Holdings Limited sued Patrick Mukiri Kabundu on 20th February 2015 seeking permanent injunctions restraining him from interfering with the company's directorship, shareholding and operations, a declaration that he was an intermeddler without locus to execute a judgment in the company's favour, an injunction against interference with various Nairobi and Mombasa parcels, and an account of rentals collected. The dispute arose from long-running family litigation, including HCCC No.649 of 1996 in which Ombija J held the 1st Plaintiff lacked authority to sue and J.B. Ojwang J entered judgment on the Defendant's counterclaim on 7th May 2004. The Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th April 2015 seeking dismissal of the suit as res judicata, an abuse of process, and barred by Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act; it was supported by a 45-paragraph Verifying Affidavit with 29 annexures. At highlighting of submissions the Defendant confined himself to jurisdiction. Gacheru J applied the Mukisa Biscuits test and related authorities, holding that because the objection was supported by an affidavit used to ascertain facts, it did not raise a pure point of law and did not stem from the pleadings. The court declined to consider the merits of the objection, emphasised Article 159(2)(d) and the reluctance of courts to strike out suits, urged the parties to expeditiously prosecute the multiple applications, and dismissed the Preliminary Objection entirely with costs to the Plaintiffs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Preliminary Objection qualified as a pure point of law

Holding

It did not; the accompanying Verifying Affidavit with annexures meant facts had to be ascertained, disqualifying it as a Preliminary Objection

Reasoning

The court applied Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja, noting that a Preliminary Objection must stem from the pleadings and rest on undisputed law. The Defendant's Notice was supported by a 45-paragraph Verifying Affidavit with 29 annexures used to explain and ascertain facts, and the affidavit was never expunged. The objection therefore failed at the threshold and the court declined to consider its merits.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A Preliminary Objection must raise a pure point of law on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct; it cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained
  • A Preliminary Objection supported by an affidavit to ascertain facts is defective and cannot stand
  • Striking out a suit is a drastic remedy reserved for plain and obvious cases; under Article 159(2)(d) courts should favour substantive justice over procedural technicalities

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th April 2015 is dismissed entirely
  2. 2.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the Plaintiffs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7

Cases cited (9)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors
    (1969) EA 701
  • Oraro v Mbaja
    (2005) 1 KLR 141
  • Quick Enterprises Ltd v Kenya Railways Corporation
    Kisumu HCCC No.22 of 1999
  • Mumias Agricultural Transported Ltd v Chanan Agricultural Contracts
    Nairobi HCCC No.786 of 1996
  • Avtar Singh Bhamra & Another v Oriental Commercial Bank
    Kisumu HCCC No.53 of 2004
  • United Insurance Co. Ltd v Scholastica A. Odera
    Kisumu HCC Appeal No.6 of 2005
  • Francis Kamande v Vanguard Electrical Services
    Civil Appeal No.152 of 1996
  • Nitin Properties Ltd v Jagjit Singh Kalsi & Another
    Civil Appeal No.132 of 1989 (1982?) 2 EA 257
  • D.T. Dobie & Co (K) Ltd v Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another
    (1982) KLR 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court over the suit and the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th April 2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ruth Wakonyo Kabundu & another v Patrick Mukiri Kabundu [2017] KEELC 3798 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). HCCC No. 66 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/3798/eng@2017-08-31

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