Jcqueline Mach Damon & another v Hugh George & 5 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
J.M. Mutungi
Judgment Date
October 01, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Jcqueline Mach Damon & another v Hugh George & 5 others [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal insights and implications for similar cases.

Case Brief: Jcqueline Mach Damon & another v Hugh George & 5 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Jacqueline Mach Damon & Mawe Mbili Limited v. The Right Honourable Hugh George Cholmondeley Fifth Baron & Others
- Case Number: ELC No. 29 of 2019
- Court: Environment and Land Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- Date Delivered: 1st October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): J.M. Mutungi
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case revolves around whether the 2nd plaintiff, Mawe Mbili Limited, validly withdrew its suit against the defendants and whether the court should review its order from 24th September 2019 that marked the suit as withdrawn.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Jacqueline Mach Damon (1st plaintiff) and Mawe Mbili Limited (2nd plaintiff), initiated this suit against multiple defendants, including Hugh George Cholmondeley and others, on 27th February 2019. Subsequently, on 23rd September 2019, the 2nd plaintiff submitted a Notice of Change of Advocates and a Notice of Withdrawal from the suit. The withdrawal was based on a board resolution that purportedly authorized this action. However, the 1st plaintiff contended that the withdrawal was irregular as it was executed without proper authorization from the board of directors of the 2nd plaintiff.

4. Procedural History:
Following the withdrawal on 24th September 2019, the 1st plaintiff filed an application on 23rd October 2019 seeking to review the court's order that marked the 2nd plaintiff's suit as withdrawn. The application was supported by an affidavit asserting that the 2nd plaintiff’s director acted without authority. The 2nd plaintiff opposed this application, maintaining that the withdrawal was valid and properly authorized. The defendants also filed grounds of opposition, arguing that the withdrawal was akin to a consent order and could not be set aside. The court directed parties to submit written submissions, which led to the ruling on 1st October 2020.

5. Analysis:

- Rules: The court examined the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, particularly Section 80 and Order 45, concerning the review of judgments and orders. It also referenced Order 25 Rule 1, which allows a plaintiff to withdraw a suit at any time before it is set down for hearing.
- Case Law: The court cited previous cases, including *Leo Investments Ltd v. Trident Insurance Co. Ltd (2014)* and *Republic v. Registrar General & 13 Others (2005)*, which established that a corporation must authorize legal actions through its board of directors. The court noted that the 2nd plaintiff did not ratify the suit filed by the 1st plaintiff, thereby affirming the validity of the withdrawal.
- Application: The court found that the 2nd plaintiff had validly withdrawn the suit as it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the Civil Procedure Rules. The court determined that the withdrawal was made with proper notice and that all parties were present when the order was issued. The court concluded that there were no grounds to set aside the order of withdrawal as there was no error or new evidence to warrant a review.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the 1st plaintiff's application for review, affirming the validity of the 2nd plaintiff's withdrawal of the suit. The ruling underscored the importance of corporate governance in legal proceedings, emphasizing that actions taken without proper authorization from a corporation's board may be deemed invalid.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling, as the decision was delivered by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The court ruled in favor of the defendants by upholding the withdrawal of the suit by the 2nd plaintiff, Mawe Mbili Limited. This case highlights the necessity for compliance with corporate governance principles in legal actions and reinforces the autonomy of corporations in deciding their participation in litigation. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases involving unauthorized legal actions by corporate representatives.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Jcqueline-Mach-Damon--another-v-Hugh-George--5-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1215_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries