Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Case E003 of 2023· [2023] KEELC 20611 (KLR)

Mwenesi v Bunyali & 7 others

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
12 October 2023
2,593 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to strike out land dispute defences, ruling that even one genuine triable issue means the case must go to a full hearing.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, the estate of John Mwenesi Adulu (deceased) represented by Ebby Musimbi Mwenesi, brought a notice of motion dated March 17, 2023 under Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 2 Rule 15(1)(b)(c) and (d) and Order 36(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2012, seeking the striking out of the defences of the 1st through 8th defendants and entry of judgment as prayed in the plaint. The plaintiff contended that the defences raised no triable issues: the limitation defence had been canvassed previously and was res judicata; adverse possession could only be raised by originating summons; and the 1975 sale and 1995 transfer of the deceased's land were irregular and a nullity for lack of a grant of representation, so no good title passed to the subsequent purchasers. The defendants countered that their defences raised serious triable issues of fraud, illegality, bona fide purchase for value, adverse possession and limitation; that the suit was time-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act; that the application invoked wrong provisions; and that it was an afterthought since the plaintiff's case had already proceeded with two witnesses. Justice E.C. Cherono framed a single issue: whether the defences were a sham raising no triable issue. Applying the settled principles in DT Dobie, KCB v Suntra, Blue Shield, Postal Corporation, Co-operative Merchant Bank and Yaya Towers, the court held the defences raised bona fide triable issues on the root of title and lawfulness of the transfers, that a counterclaim cannot stand without its defence, and that the application was an afterthought. The application was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the defences filed are a sham raising no triable issue and should be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15 and Order 36(1)(b)

Holding

The application was dismissed; the defences raise bona fide triable issues including limitation, bona fide purchaser for value, adverse possession and the root of title, and striking out would be unfair.

Reasoning

The court applied the settled principles that striking out is a drastic, sparingly exercised remedy. The defences contained specific denials and triable defences explaining the root of title and wishing away fraud allegations. Whether title was lawfully obtained required a full hearing. The application was also an afterthought, filed after the plaintiff had called two witnesses.

p. 5
02

Whether a counterclaim can survive striking out of a defence

Holding

A counterclaim cannot stand on its own; it is conjoined to the defence under Order 8 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, so the plaintiff's argument that counterclaims would remain after striking out defences was rejected.

Reasoning

The plaintiff had argued that the defendants' counterclaims for reimbursement would remain for trial even if the defences were struck out, so no prejudice would be suffered. The court held this position untenable because a counterclaim is conjoined to the defence under Order 8 Rule 7, meaning striking out the defences would also imperil the counterclaims.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to strike out pleadings is a drastic step that should be used sparingly and only where the pleading is clearly untenable
  • If a defence raises even one bona fide triable issue, the defendant must be given leave to defend
  • A counterclaim cannot stand on its own as it is conjoined to a defence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated March 17, 2023 seeking striking out of the defences and entry of judgment is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the defendants/respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 2 Rule 15(1)(b)(c) and (d) and Order 36(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mwenesi v Bunyali & 7 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E003 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/20611/eng@2023-10-12

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