REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 93 OF 2013 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JANE NJOKI GITUANJA RULING 1. The respondents to the Motion dated 15 th December 2015 have raised a preliminary objection to that application, on the grounds that it is premature, incompetent, lacking locus standi and is an abuse of the court process. 2. The objection as framed is very general in nature, and does not directly point out the particular aspects of the Motion which render it premature or incompetent or an abuse of process. There is a vagueness around it which no doubt embarrasses the applicant in terms of how she can competently and effectively answer the objection. 3. I note that the respondents have filed a replying affidavit through Michael Mungai Kimani, sworn on 2nd March 2016. A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law, and should be resolved without the court having to look out for facts. Consequently, a preliminary objection and a replying affidavit cannot possibly stand together. Filing both no doubt means that the preliminary objection is not in fact a preliminary objection. 4. There cannot be any merit in the preliminary objection dated 29th February 2016. I shall overrule it. The applicant shall have costs of the objection. The applicant is at liberty to have her application dated 15th December 2015 fixed for hearing. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2017. W. MUSYOKA JUDGE
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.