Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (referenced proceedings: Mombasa HCCC No.331 of 2008)· [2019] KEELC 2420 (KLR)

Mawando Limited v Thousand Palms Beach Hotel Limited & 2 others [2019] KEELC 2420 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 July 2019
2,991 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to strike out a land suit, ruling that fraud and forgery claims are triable issues that must be tested at a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st Defendant/Applicant moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 2nd June 2018 seeking a stay of all further proceedings and the striking out of the Plaintiff Mawando Limited's suit, with costs payable jointly and severally by the Plaintiff, its advocates Nyameta Mogaka & Magiya, and its director Zahid Iqubal Dean. The Applicant contended the suit was frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process and founded on forged documents and falsehoods, arguing principally that the Plaintiff, incorporated on 8/9/2008, could not have acquired the suit property in 1982 under the name Thousand Palms Beach Hotel Ltd, and that the Plaintiff's claim that the 1st Defendant fraudulently registered itself as proprietor in 2009 was untenable. The application, supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant's advocate, Ms. D. Muyaa, was opposed by the Plaintiff, which maintained that the issues raised were matters of evidence for a full hearing. Mr. Makuto for the 2nd Defendant supported the application. The court applied the settled principles in DT Dobie v Muchina and Yaya Towers v Trade Bank: the striking-out jurisdiction is exercised sparingly, only in plain and obvious cases, and where triable issues arise the suit must proceed to trial. Holding that a finding of forgery would require determining the suit on affidavit evidence without cross-examination, and invoking Articles 50(1) and 25 of the Constitution and the overriding objective, the court declined to strike out the suit. It additionally held that the advocate improperly swore a contentious affidavit. The application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should be struck out as an abuse of process and founded on forged documents

Holding

The application was dismissed; allegations of forgery and falsehood raise triable issues that must be tested at a full hearing, not determined on affidavit evidence

Reasoning

The court applied DT Dobie v Muchina and Yaya Towers: the striking-out jurisdiction is exercised sparingly, only in plain and obvious cases. Making findings that the Plaintiff's documents were forgeries would amount to determining the case on affidavit evidence, conducting a mini-trial without cross-examination. The Plaintiff did not admit the facts asserted, so the case is not plain and obvious. Article 50(1) fair hearing rights and the overriding objective favour a full hearing.

p. 3
02

Whether an advocate for a party may swear the supporting affidavit in a contentious matter

Holding

No; the advocate swearing a contentious affidavit created a legal muddle, and this undermined the application

Reasoning

Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules confines affidavits to facts the deponent can prove of own knowledge, and Rule 9 of the Advocates Practice Rules prohibits advocates swearing affidavits in contentious matters. Following Odunga, J in the Mike Sonko case, an advocate swearing on disputed facts becomes a witness subject to cross-examination. The appropriate deponent was a director of the Applicant.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit should not be summarily struck out unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action and is incurable by amendment
  • The power to strike out pleadings must be sparingly exercised and only in the clearest of cases; if a pleading raises a triable issue the suit ought to go to trial
  • Advocates should not swear affidavits on contentious, disputed facts in matters they are handling

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Defendant/Applicant's Application dated 2nd June 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 159, 25(c), 50(1), 149(2)(b)(d) and (e)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15(1)(b)(c) & (d); Order 19 Rule 3(1)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 3
  • Companies Act, Cap 486 Laws of Kenya (repealed)Section 20(3)
  • Advocates Practice RulesRule 9

Cases cited (8)

  • Bhavasar Anadkumar t/a Sarax Enterprises –v- Beloilco Holdings Ltd & 3 Others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Salesio M'aribu –v- Meru County Council
    Civil Appeal No.183 of 2002
  • D.T. Dobie –v- Muchina
    (1980) KLR 1; (1982) KLR 1
  • G.B.M Kariuki –v- Nation Media Group Limited & 3 Others
    (2012) eKLR
  • Yaya Towers Limited –v- Trade Bank Limited (In Liquidation)
    Civil Appeal No.35 of 2000
  • Republic –v- Nairobi City County Government & 6 Others Ex Parte Mike Sonko Mbuvi
    (2015) eKLR
  • Stephen Boro Gitiha –v- Family Finance Building Society & 3 Others
    Civil Application No.263 of 2009
  • Lucy Bosire –v- Kehancha Div. Land Disputes Tribunal & 2 Others
    (2013) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159, 25(c), 50(1) and 149(2)(b)(d) and (e) of the Constitution; Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 2 Rule 15(1)(b)(c) & (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mawando Limited v Thousand Palms Beach Hotel Limited & 2 others [2019] KEELC 2420 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (referenced proceedings: Mombasa HCCC No.331 of 2008). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2420/eng@2019-07-08

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