John Paul Titi v Mumias Sugar Co Ltd [1997] KECA 105 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal threw out a defence that was just a blanket denial, confirming vague pleadings get struck out and vague litigants pay costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant's defence disclosed any reasonable defence or triable issues to the respondent's claim
- 2.Whether a defective pleading founded on a bare general denial can be cured otherwise than by amendment
- 3.Whether the learned trial Judge erred in hearing and determining the respondent's application exparte
Key legal issues
#Whether the defence disclosed triable issues
The defence was no more than a general denial; the defect could only be cured by amendment, which was never sought, and the alternative plea on dishonoured cheques was evasive and inconsistent with the total denial of indebtedness.
Paragraph 2 of the defence was a bare denial, insufficient under Order 6 rule 9(3). The appellant had ample time between the interpartes hearing date and the hearing date to apply to amend but did not. The alternative defence on dishonoured cheques was evasive since the appellant, having issued the cheques, knew whether they were honoured, and it contradicted his total denial of indebtedness. The trial Judge was therefore justified in striking out the defence as an abuse of process.
Whether the exparte hearing of the application was erroneous
The exparte hearing was proper; counsel for the appellant conceded the grounds of opposition were filed late and unserved and did not invoke Order 50 rule 16(3) to seek leave to argue them.
The record showed Mr. Munyasia appeared at the hearing and conceded that the grounds of opposition had been filed late and not served, without explaining the lapse. He failed to take advantage of the remedy under Order 50 rule 16(3) to apply for leave to argue the grounds out of time. The trial Judge therefore rightly ordered that the application proceed exparte, and the appellant could not complain of a procedure he himself declined to invoke.
Legal principles established
#- A defective pleading can be cured only by amendment of that pleading; a general denial is not a sufficient traverse and does not disclose a reasonable defence.
- A general denial or general statement of non-admission is not a sufficient traverse of the allegations in a plaint.
- A spurious pleading in the alternative discloses no reasonable defence for the purposes of Order 6 rule 13(1)(a).
- A party who fails to file grounds of opposition in time must apply under Order 50 rule 16(3) for leave to argue them; failure to do so leaves the application free to proceed exparte.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- H.C.C.C. No. 5212 of 1992
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Court of Appeal from the High Court under the Constitution and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (appeal from ruling of the High Court)
Relief refused
#Setting aside the order striking out the defence and entering judgment for the respondent
The defence was a bare general denial, evasive and inconsistent, intended to delay the fair trial of the suit; no triable issues were disclosed
Costs
Appeal dismissed with cost (costs to the respondent)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
it is trite law that if a pleading is defective its defect can be cured only by an amendment of the same.
general denial of the allegations in the plaint or a general statement of non-admission of those allegations is not a sufficient traverse of them.
such a spurious pleading in the alternative cannot give any merit to the defence and so also makes it one which discloses no reasonable defence for all purposes including that of 0.6 r13 (1)(a).
In the end we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss it with cost.
Issues in the judgment
#The decretal amount is stated inconsistently within the judgment as Shs. 633,558.85 and Shs. 633,558.50
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Paul Titi v Mumias Sugar Co Ltd [1997] KECA 105 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1997). Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1996. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1997/105/eng@1997-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.