Salimu & another v Saningu & 5 others
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 1st, 3rd and 4th defendants
The suit discloses a reasonable cause of action; the application to strike out fails
The court found that whether a caution was in place when the defendants bought the land is contested. Such issues of fact cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence but require viva voce evidence subject to cross-examination. The right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) requires parties be heard before a final decision.
Costs of the interlocutory application
Costs should await the final outcome of the dispute
The court held it would not be fair to apportion costs at an interlocutory stage before the substantive dispute is determined, and accordingly ordered costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- Contested factual issues such as the existence of a caution at the time of purchase cannot be determined on affidavits but must be tried by viva voce evidence
- Striking out of pleadings is a draconian remedy to be used sparingly and only in very clear cases
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated April 12, 2021 is dismissed
- 2.Costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 20 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules (interlocutory application in original suit)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Salimu & another v Saningu & 5 others", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 106 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/13551/eng@2022-10-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.