Inclusive Agencies (Msa) Limited v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P.J.O. Otieno
Judgment Date
October 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the case summary of Inclusive Agencies (Msa) Limited v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR. Discover key judgments, legal implications, and insights from this significant ruling.

Case Brief: Inclusive Agencies (Msa) Limited v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Inclusive Agencies (MSA) Limited v. Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited
- Case Number: Civil Suit No. 14 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: October 9, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P.J.O. Otieno
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issue in this case is whether the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, alleging negligence and breach of duty of care regarding the provision of a security bond, discloses a reasonable cause of action. Specifically, the court must determine if the bond's alleged inadequacy led to the failure of the plaintiff's tender application.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Inclusive Agencies (MSA) Limited, sought damages from the defendant, Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited, claiming that the bank's negligence in providing a security bond for a tender resulted in the tender being declared non-responsive. The bond was intended to cover 150 days but was issued for only 120 days. The plaintiff contends that this error directly caused the loss of the tender opportunity. The defendant responded by seeking to have the plaintiff's claim struck out, arguing that the tender was declared non-responsive for reasons unrelated to the bond's validity.

4. Procedural History:
The defendant filed an application to strike out the plaintiff's claim, contending that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was therefore frivolous and vexatious. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaint could withstand scrutiny based solely on its content, without considering external evidence. The judge reviewed the plaint and the context of the tender's rejection, ultimately deciding against striking it out.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced established legal principles regarding the striking out of pleadings, emphasizing that a case should not be dismissed unless it is entirely devoid of merit. The court cited the necessity of allowing litigants a chance to present their cases, even if they appear weak at first glance.
- Case Law: The court cited *Crescent Construction Co. Ltd v. Delphis Bank Ltd* [2007] eKLR, which stresses the importance of caution in striking out pleadings, and *Jevaj Shariff & Co. v. Chotui Pharmacy Stores* [1960] E.A. 374, which held that the determination of whether a plaint discloses a cause of action should be based solely on the plaint itself and any accompanying documents, assuming the truth of its allegations.
- Application: The court analyzed the content of the plaint and concluded that there was a question worth investigating regarding whether the defendant's actions constituted a wrong against the plaintiff. The judge noted that the outcome of the tender process could not be solely attributed to the bond's duration without evidence, which would be presented at a hearing.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the defendant's application to strike out the plaint, finding that it did not lack a semblance of a cause of action. The case was allowed to proceed to hearing, emphasizing the need for evidence to determine the merits of the plaintiff's claims.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed, rejecting the defendant's attempt to strike it out. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that all litigants have the opportunity to present their cases, even when initial arguments may appear weak. The case highlights the importance of thorough examination of claims and the evidentiary requirements that will ultimately determine the outcome of civil disputes.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Inclusive-Agencies-Msa-Limited-v-Co-operative-Bank-of-Kenya-Limited-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1725_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries