Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Commercial & Tax Division v Jatco Tours & Taxis Co. Limited & 2 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION CIVIL SUIT NO. 481 OF 2009 AFRICAN BANKING CORPORATION KTD……..............................……....PLAINTIFF VERSUS JATCO TOURS & TAXIS CO. LIMITED…….....................................…1ST DEFENDANT DANIEL MUTUA MUOKI…………………….....................................….2ND DEFENDANT DANCAN MWANGI NJIRANI…….……...….....................................…..3RD DEFENDANT RULING I have considered the summary application brought under the Notice of Motion dated 25th July 2010, seeking the following Orders:1. That the Statement of Defence filed by Defendants herein be struck out with costs. 2. That judgment be entered for the Plaintiff herein as prayed in the Plaint 3. That in the alternative to the above prayers, judgment on admission be entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of Kshs. 4,039,646 4. That the Defendants do pay the costs of this application in any event. After perusing the application, the affidavits filed for and against the same and considering the pleadings and written submissions filed by the opposing sides, in light of the law, I have formed the opinion that this is not a clear case where summary judgment can issue except perhaps as regards the judgment on admission sought in prayer 3. For reasons to appear in a substantive ruling to be delivered on notice, during the forthcoming vacation, I am not inclined to allow the application. In the circumstances the matter is stayed pending the substantive Ruling. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED at NAIROBI THIS 29THDAY OF JULY, 2011 M. G. MUGO JUDGE In the presence of: Miss Odongo Mr. Mutuli For the Applicant For the Respondent

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.