Ashok Labshanker Doshi v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation
The bottom line
#The High Court struck out a depositor's suit against Kenya's bank liquidator because identical cases were already pending elsewhere, and awarded costs against him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
The suit is sub judice; similar suits between the same parties over the same subject matter were pending in Mombasa and the Court of Appeal, and similar orders had already been sought and granted elsewhere
The court applied the five conditions for sub judice from the Kirima case: same matter directly and substantially in issue, same parties, pending before competent Kenyan courts, first court competent to grant the relief, and same title. It identified four pending suits by the plaintiff on the same subject matter, with similar orders previously granted by Onyiego J and not controverted. Consequently the court lacked jurisdiction.
Whether the suit is an abuse of court process
Yes; the multiplicity of suits seeking identical relief was an abuse of process and amounted to forum shopping
The defendant showed the plaintiff had filed several suits and applications challenging the liquidation and halting payments, with one application dismissed on 15th May 2023 and an injunction granted in 2016 subsequently set aside on appeal. The court found the orders sought had been sought, granted elsewhere and similarly set aside, making the present suit duplicative and an abuse.
Whether the plaintiff met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold for an interlocutory injunction
The court declined to reach this question once it found the suit sub judice
Having held that the suit and application were sub judice and that the court lacked jurisdiction, the court found it unnecessary to interrogate the framed issues, including the injunction threshold. The effect was dismissal of the entire suit and application, with directions to prosecute the pending Mombasa and Court of Appeal matters.
Legal principles established
#- Where the same matter is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties pending before a competent Kenyan court, a later court lacks jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
- A suit duplicating pending litigation between the same parties over the same subject matter amounts to an abuse of the court process
Court orders
#- 1.The suit and the application are dismissed and struck out in their entirety
- 2.The plaintiff is directed to prosecute the matters pending before the High Court in Mombasa and the Court of Appeal
- 3.The Defendant may proceed to execute its mandate under the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act unless otherwise lawfully restrained
- 4.The plaintiff to bear the costs of the Defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 28 and 55(2) of the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act; Section 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ashok Labshanker Doshi v Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation", Case Analysis (2024). Nairobi HCC No. E270 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.