Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | misc civ app 1345 of 03 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Esther Wahome Bureau Ltd v Mfi Office Solutions Ltd |
| Date Delivered: | 18 Feb 2004 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) |
| Case Action: | Ruling |
| Judge(s): | Isaac Lenaola |
| Citation: | Esther Wahome Bureau Ltd v Mfi Office Solutions Ltd[2004] eKLR |
| Advocates: | High Court at Nairobi |
| Court Division: | Civil |
| Advocates: | High Court at Nairobi |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPL. NO. 1345 OF 2003
ESTHER WAHOME BUREAU LIMITED………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
MFI OFFICE SOLUTIONS LIMITED ……………..…..RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. The Preliminary Objection raised by Learned Counsel for the Respondent is this; that the words “if any party served does not appear at the time and place above -mentioned such order will be made and proceedings taken as the co urt may think just and expedient” are missing in the Application dated 2nd November 2003.
2. I am told that Order 50 Rule 15(2) specifically uses the word “shall” and therefore without the words above, the whole Application should be struck out.
3. In response, counsel for the Applicant tells me that those words merely go to form and not to the substance of the Application and Order 6 Rule 12 cures such defects as they are merely technical.
4. It is becoming increasingly clear that the use of Preliminary Objections is intended to serve a purpose other than known and expected in law. Time and time again, courts have said that Preliminary Objections must be predicated upon a matter of law that would cripple a proceeding because it goes to substance.
5. As I see it, the purpose for which the words used in Order 50 Rule 15(2) are put there to warn a party of the consequences of non-attendance and not the substance of any claim it may have against another party or is defending as filed against him. In the instant case the party warned has appeared and cannot now claim that those words should be applied to it.
6. I do not see merit in the objection and even if there was, it can be soothed with the inherent power of this court to admit a pleading even with some defect in form.
7. I disallow the same and ask that parties take a hearing date for the Application dated 2nd November 2003.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 18th day of February 2004.
I. LENAOLA
Ag. JUDGE
18.2.2004
Before Lenaola Ag. J.
Amos CC
Ruling read in the presence of Mr. Kamau for Miss Njoroge for the
Respondent
No appearance for the Applicant.
Please Wait. Searching ...