Laureen M. Isiaho Sawe P/A Isiaho Sawe & Company Advocates v Teresa Chebichii Rutto & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
M. A. Odeny
Judgment Date
August 16, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Laureen M. Isiaho Sawe P/A Isiaho Sawe & Company Advocates v Teresa Chebichii Rutto & 2 others [2020] eKLR. Discover key legal insights and outcomes from this important decision.

Case Brief: Laureen M. Isiaho Sawe P/A Isiaho Sawe & Company Advocates v Teresa Chebichii Rutto & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Laureen M. Isiaho Sawe P/A Isiaho Sawe & Company Advocates v. Teresa Chebichii Rutto & Others
- Case Number: ELC No. 11 of 2020
- Court: Environment and Lands Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: August 6, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): M. A. Odeny
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include:
1. Whether the plaintiff's suit contravenes Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act and Section 38 of the Land Act, warranting its dismissal.
2. Whether the validity of the memorandum of understanding dated February 24, 2015, can be determined summarily.
3. Whether the application for striking out the suit serves the interests of justice.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Laureen M. Isiaho Sawe, initiated the case by filing an Originating Summons seeking declaratory orders regarding the ownership of land parcels L.R No. Eldoret Municipality Block 21 (King’ong’o)/5576 and 5578, based on a memorandum of understanding dated February 24, 2015. The defendants, Teresa Chebichii Rutto, Tecla Cherono, and Philip Kiptoo Maiyo, contested the suit, arguing that it was null and void due to non-compliance with legal requirements concerning contracts and representation. The background involves a previous case (ELDORET ELC No. 515 of 2013) where the 1st defendant was awarded part of the estate of a deceased relative, and the plaintiff's agreement to receive a portion of land was allegedly flawed.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the court system, starting with the plaintiff's application for an injunction, which was later compromised. The defendants filed an application on March 5, 2020, seeking to strike out the plaintiff's suit. The court allowed written submissions from both parties. The defendants contended that the suit violated statutory provisions and was based on a flawed agreement, while the plaintiff argued that the application was a tactic to deny her a fair hearing.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, which requires contracts to be in writing, signed by all parties, and attested by a witness. It also referenced Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules regarding striking out pleadings that disclose no reasonable cause of action.

- Case Law: The court cited several precedents, including *D.T. Dobie & Company (K) Ltd vs. Muchina* and *Geminia Insurance Co Limited vs. Kennedy Otieno Onyango*, emphasizing that striking out a pleading is a draconian measure to be used sparingly and only when a case is hopeless. The court also referenced *Branco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda* to stress the importance of allowing cases to be heard on their merits.

- Application: The court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties, concluding that the issues raised by the defendants were substantive and could not be resolved without oral evidence. The court emphasized that dismissing the suit at this stage would unjustly deny the plaintiff her right to a fair hearing.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's suit, determining that the case did not fall under the category of hopeless cases warranting such a drastic measure. The ruling underscored the importance of allowing litigants to present their cases fully.

7. Dissent:
There was no dissenting opinion noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The court dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's suit, allowing the case to proceed to trial. This decision highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring access to justice and the right to a fair hearing, reinforcing the principle that cases should be decided based on their merits rather than procedural technicalities.

Citations:
- Law of Contract Act, Section 3(3)
- Civil Procedure Rules 2010, Order 2 Rule 15
- *D.T. Dobie & Company (K) Ltd vs. Muchina* [1982] KLR 1
- *Branco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda* [1999] 2 EA 22
- *Geminia Insurance Co Limited vs. Kennedy Otieno Onyango* [2005] eKLR

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Laureen-M-Isiaho-Sawe-P-A-Isiaho-Sawe--Company-Advocates-v-Teresa-Chebichii-Rutto--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1914_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries