REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 52 of 2001 DARSHAN SHAH ………………………..............................…………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS ROOPAM (K) LIMITED ………..……......................……...…………….. 1ST DEFENDANT HEMAL HARIA ………….………........................…………...………… 2ND DEFENDANT RULING ON A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION This is an application by the Attorney General that this suit was instituted contrary to seciton 13(a) of the Government Proceeding Act. Namely no notice was issued 30 days before the suit was filed under section 13 A. The application is being opposed to. It is noted herein that the suit before me was filed against a defendant. He in turn took out two 3rd party proceedings whereby he joined the attorney General as the 1 st defendant 3rd party. This means that the application being ex parte the Attorney General would come aware of the case at the time of service. I hereby find that the suit should begin to accrue at the stage in which leave was granted. If 3rd party proceeding were not filed nor served after the court giving leave and within the given time there is therefore cause for a preliminary objection At this state the preliminary objection does not arise and must await the trial. I hereby over rule this preliminary objection with costs to the defendants and the plaintiff. Dated this 9th day of December 2004 at Nairobi. M.A. ANG’AWA JUDGE V. Gosmani for plaintiff S.B.N. Atambo for the Attorney General
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.