Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
High CourtAllowedCivil Case No. E290 of 2019· [2020] KEHC 9648 (KLR)

Jungle Energy (K) Limited v Rwathia Distributors Limited, Kiewa Group Limited & Viatech Services Limited Consortium (R.K.V. Consortium)

High Court of Kenya
18 May 2020
DMD. S. Majanja
1,717 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A simple denial of debt is not enough; you must provide a valid, substantive reason for non-payment to avoid losing the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, Jungle Energy (K) Limited, sued the R.K.V. Consortium for goods sold and delivered, claiming a balance of Kshs. 69,667,600.00 out of a total contract sum of Kshs. 226,717,600.00 for 10,164 concrete electricity transmission poles supplied under eleven Local Purchase Orders between December 2016 and April 2017, evidenced by delivery notes and invoices, with part payment of Kshs. 157,040,000 acknowledged. The plaintiff moved the court under Order 2 rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules to strike out the defendant's statement of defence and enter judgment. The defendant denied the contract, supply, invoices and payments, asserting a general traverse. Majanja J restated the settled principles: the power to strike out must be exercised sparingly, a defence raising a bona fide triable issue must go to trial, and a mere denial is not a sufficient defence. The court found the plaintiff had verified on oath documents showing the LPOs, delivery, part payment and email admissions of indebtedness. The defendant's complaint that three delivery notes lacked its stamp was not a triable issue since the defendant did not contest the invoices, made part payment and admitted indebtedness. The defence was held to be a bare denial raising no triable issues, was struck out as scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for Kshs. 69,667,600.00 with interest at 12% per annum from filing suit until payment in full, plus costs of the application and suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a bare denial defence survives an application to strike out where the plaintiff has documented the contract, delivery, part payment and admissions of indebtedness

Holding

The defence was a bare denial that raised no triable issues and was struck out; judgment was entered for the plaintiff.

Reasoning

The plaintiff produced and verified on oath documents showing LPOs issued by the defendant, delivery of concrete poles evidenced by acknowledged delivery notes, part payment of Kshs. 157,040,000, and email admissions of indebtedness. The defendant's three unstamped delivery notes point did not create a triable issue because the defendant did not contest the invoices, made part payment and admitted indebtedness. A full trial would add nothing to the defence.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A mere denial is not a sufficient defence; a defendant must show by affidavit, oral evidence or otherwise that there is a good defence, especially where part payment and admissions of indebtedness exist.
  • The power to strike out a defence must be exercised sparingly and the court should be reluctant to drive a defendant from the judgment seat, but a defence raising a bona fide triable issue must proceed to trial.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant's statement of defence is struck out as scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and as likely to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action
  2. 2.Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for Kshs. 69,667,600.00
  3. 3.Interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of filing suit until payment in full
  4. 4.Costs of the application and the suit to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 rule 15(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)

Cases cited (5)

  • D. T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited v Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1978 [1980] eKLR

    Principles for striking out pleadings; court should act sparingly and not drive a defendant from the judgment seat

  • Isaac Awuondo v Surgipharm Limited
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2002 [2011] eKLR

    Settled principles on striking out a statement of defence

  • Olympic Escort International Limited & 2 Others v Parminder Singh Sandhu & Another
    NRB CA Civil Appeal No. 306 of 2002 [2009] eKLR

    A triable issue is not necessarily one that must succeed at trial

  • Magunga General Stores v Pepco Distributors Limited
    [1986] LLR 4111 (CAK)

    A mere denial is not a sufficient defence; defendant must show a good defence

  • Raghbir Singh Chatte v National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [1996] eKLR

    Platt JA: mere denial insufficient; defendant must give some reason why it does not owe the money

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 2 rule 15(1)(a)-(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules (original civil jurisdiction of the High Court)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jungle Energy (K) Limited v Rwathia Distributors Limited, Kiewa Group Limited & Viatech Services Limited Consortium (R.K.V. Consortium)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Case No. E290 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2020/9648/eng@2020-05-18

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