Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEnvironment & Land Case E002 of 2021· [2023] KEELC 18481 (KLR)

Luka & 4 others v Taloi & 9 others

Environment and Land Court
4 July 2023
1,877 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to strike out a land defence, ruling that any genuine dispute over property rights must be decided at a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs/applicants, in a land dispute before the Environment and Land Court at Narok, moved the court by notice of motion dated May 24, 2021 under Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking to strike out the defendants' statement of defence dated March 3, 2021 and to have judgment entered as prayed in the plaint. They argued the defence was scandalous, frivolous, a mere denial, unverified and an abuse of process, relying on Three Rivers DC v Bank of England, Anglo Italian Bank v Wells and Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner. The defendants opposed, relying on DT Dobie v Muchina, Bank of Africa v Karanja and Philip Chemwolo v Kubende, urging that even one triable issue suffices and no loss beyond damages was shown. Justice C.G Mbogo framed the sole issue as whether the defence ought to be struck out. Applying the settled principles that striking out is draconian and sparingly exercised, and that a defence raising even one bona fide triable issue must be allowed to stand, the court found that paragraph 5 of the defence - alleging the plaint was filed to deprive the defendants of their legal property - raised a triable issue resolvable only after hearing the parties. The court also noted the defence contained what appeared to be a defective counterclaim lacking a verifying affidavit under Order 7 rule 5(a), but held the defect curable, not fatal, citing Jemimah Muchai Mwai v Peter Wangio Thuku. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause; the defendants were directed to file a verifying affidavit within seven days and mention set for July 18, 2023.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the defence should be struck out as frivolous and an abuse of process

Holding

The application fails because the defence raises a triable issue regarding the defendants' right to property, which can only be resolved after hearing the parties.

Reasoning

The court reviewed the settled principles that striking out is draconian and sparingly exercised, and that even one bona fide triable issue entitles a defendant to defend. Paragraph 5 of the defence alleges the plaint was filed to deprive the defendants of their legal property. Whether that is so requires oral evidence at trial, so the defence is not plain, frivolous or abusive.

02

Effect of filing a counterclaim without a verifying affidavit

Holding

The counterclaim is defective for want of a verifying affidavit under Order 7 rule 5(a), but the defect is curable and not fatal.

Reasoning

Order 7 rule 5(a) requires a defence and counterclaim to be accompanied by an affidavit where there is a counterclaim. The court found the counterclaim defective but, relying on Jemimah Muchai Mwai v Peter Wangio Thuku, held that a party who inadvertently omits a verifying affidavit may be given a chance to file one, with costs addressing any prejudice from delay.

Legal principles established

#
  • If a defence raises even one bona fide triable issue, the defendant must be given leave to defend
  • A counterclaim filed without a verifying affidavit is defective but the defect is not fatal and may be cured by leave

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated May 24, 2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to be in the cause
  3. 3.The defendants/respondents to file a verifying affidavit within seven days from the date of the ruling
  4. 4.Mention on July 18, 2023 for further directions
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 51 Rule 1, Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Luka & 4 others v Taloi & 9 others", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E002 of 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/18481/eng@2023-07-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.