Civil Case 1801 of 1998

Help

Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..

Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata

RAGATI TEA FACTORY COMPANY LIMITED-SHAREHOLDERS v JOHNSON K. GICHURU & 5 others [2010] eKLR

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Civil Case 1801 of 1998
Parties:	RAGATI TEA FACTORY COMPANY LIMITED-SHAREHOLDERS v JOHNSON K. GICHURU, PETER K. MATHENGE, DUNSTAN M. NGUMO, BONIFACE G. MUHAMI, JOSEPH M. NJOGU & WILLIAM I. NDUGI
Date Delivered:	16 Dec 2010
Case Class:	Civil
Court:	High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	Murugi Geteria Mugo
Citation:	RAGATI TEA FACTORY COMPANY LIMITED-SHAREHOLDERS v JOHNSON K. GICHURU & 5 others [2010] eKLR
Case Summary:	..
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

COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION

CIVIL CASE NO. 1801 OF 1998

RAGATI TEA FACTORY COMPANY LIMITED-SHAREHOLDERS................................................................PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

JOHNSON K. GICHURU...........................................................................................................................1^ST DEFENDANT

PETER K. MATHENGE.............................................................................................................................2^ND DEFENDANT

DUNSTAN M. NGUMO.............................................................................................................................3^RD DEFENDANT

BONIFACE G. MUHAMI............................................................................................................................4^TH DEFENDANT

JOSEPH M. NJOGU.................................................................................................................................5^TH DEFENDANT

WILLIAM I. NDUGI....................................................................................................................................6^TH DEFENDANT

RULING

The Notice of Motion dated 18^th August 2010, in which this Ruling is delivered, is said to have been brought under Section 3A and Order L Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks an order condemning the firm of J. A. B. Orengo to pay the applicants Kshs. 385,326/= being costs taxed in favour of the applicants in H.C.C.C. No. 1801 of 1998, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30^th November, 2007.

The application is based on the grounds set out in the face of the same and is supported by the affidavit of the 1^st Defendant as follows; Curiously, the application is brought by the Defendants in the suit but is said to have been drawn and filed by Riunga Raiji & Co. as advocates for the Plaintiffs! The applicants contend that whereas they were directors of Ragati Tea Factory Company and were sued as such; there is no known entity by the name Ragati Tea Factory Limited-Shareholders which purportedly filed suit against the Defendants, which leaves the defendants with no-one to follow for the payment of the costs incurred in defending the suit. They hold the said Plaintiff’s Advocates personally liable for the said costs, on the basis that he filed a suit on behalf of the said Plaintiff notwithstanding the fact that it was non existent in law.

I have seen, on the record, a Ruling delivered by the Hon. Lady Justice Kasango on 29^th June 2000, by which the defendant’s application to have the Plaint struck out on the same grounds as are urged herein, was dismissed with costs. The learned Judge held, inter alia, that the Defendants had failed to prove that the Plaintiff was non existent. It strikes me as strange, that the defendants who were all along represented by counsel would complain about the non-suitability of a party to a suit 12 years after the same filed. They ought to have taken up the issue at the very beginning since capacity of litigants is an issue that goes to jurisdiction.

I have not been able, upon perusal of the record, to see the defence filed but I must assume that the Defendants admitted the description of the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph 1 of the Plaint and were satisfied to proceed with the suit on that basis. The court has not been told under what provision of the law the orders sought can be made. The exercise of Courts’ inherent power can only be exercised where there is a well founded legal claim against the party as against whom the orders sought are to be enforced. J. A. B. Orengo & Company Advocates are not parties to the suit herein and the subject costs were not taxed as against them.

The circumstances under which a court can order an advocate to bear costs of a suit personally are set out in the East African Court of Appeal decision in J. B. KOHLI & OTHERS vs. BACHULAL POPATLAL [1964] E.A. 219. In the present case I see no duty owed to the Defendants by the firm of J. A. B. Orengo and Company. Perhaps the applicants should find out from their able advocates why the matter was not struck out earlier for want of capacity or have the position regularized.

In view of the above I am not inclined to allow this application and I hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 16^TH day of DECEMBER, 2010

M. G. MUGO

JUDGE

In the presence of:

Mr. Kiura For the Applicant

No appearance For the Respondents

Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML

Please enter advanced search options

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Except for some material which is expressly stated to be under a specified Creative Commons license, the contents of this website are in the public domain and free from any copyright restrictions

Case Search

Civil Case 1801 of 1998

Case Metadata

Please enter advanced search options