Caselaw

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 435 of 2008 MARIA RIMANTO KAPTEEN............................................... PLAINTIF VERSUS KENYA WINE AGENCIES............................ 1ST DEFENDANT AYTON YOUNG &RUBICAM LIMITE.............2NDDEFEDANT RULING By way of an application by Chamber Summons brought under the provisions of order VI rule 13(1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the 2nd defendant applied for the suit filed by the plaintiff be struck out with costs. The grounds in support of the application are that the plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action. From the pleadings filed, it is evident that the 2nd defendant was at all material times acting as a disclosed agent of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was also aware that she was dealing with the 2nd defendant as an agent of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant in its defence admits entering into contract the subject matter of this suit with the plaintiff by taking responsibility in the name of principal. The application is not opposed. Going by the material on record, it is evident that in this matter the The law in regard to a disclosed agent is well settled in various decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal especially the case of Wareham t/a A.F. Wareham & 2 Others vs. Kenya Post Office Savings Bank [2004] 2 KLR page 98. 2nd defendant’s role as an agent of the 1st defendant was well known to the plaintiff. Accordingly considering the matters pleaded, that no cause of action disclosed against the 2nd defendant. This suit is hereby struck out as against the 2nd defendant with costs. RULING READ AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF JULY 2009. M.K. KOOME JUDGE