Priscilla Jeruto Kisoso v Kiporot Ole Totona Alias Singo Arap Totona, Tungo Totona , Ledema Totona & Ronald Totona [2016] KEELC 263 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF  KENYA

AT NAKURU

HCC NO.  20  OF 2006

PRISCILLA JERUTO KISOSO …....….…………..PLAINTIFFF

VERSUS

KIPOROT    OLE TOTONA alias SINGO ARAP

TOTONA ………..…....………………………….1st DEFENDANT

TUNGO TOTONA  ……..….………….………2ND DEFENDANT

LEDEMA TOTONA  ….…..…………..……..3RD  DEFENDANT

RONALD  TOTONA …………......…………..4TH  DEFENDANT

RULING No.2 (of  21st  MARCH 2016)

1. This matter is slated for hearing today. Earlier in the day, Mr Karanja, learned counsel for the plaintiff   applied for the striking out of 3 defendants in the counterclaim filed by the 1st defendant in the original   suit. The reasons for the application was that it was  over 4 years since the counterclaim was filed and the same  has not been served on the persons named  as  the 2nd - 4th defendants in the counterclaim. I allowed the  application  and struck out the said persons and directed  that the  matter do  proceed with  the  original  plaintiff  as the only  defendant in the  counterclaim .

2. After delivery of my ruling,  Mr Arusei, learned counsel  for the defendant, applied for the striking  out  of the  reply  to defence and  defence  to  counterclaim for the reason that the same  have  never been  served. He relied  on Order  2  Rule  13. He   also sought  that judgment  be entered in accordance with the counterclaim. Mr Arusei also applied to have 2 of the plaintiff’s witnesses disqualified  from  testifying  as their  witness statements   have  never  been served.

3. He  submitted   that   the sword  of  justice  cuts  both  ways  and if the  court has decided that the  persons  in the counterclaim  be struck off for want of service, then the defence to counterclaim  and the witness  statements which have not been served, must face the same treatment. He submitted that the court is faced with an illegality and has no discretion in the matter. He relied    on the case of Kenya Transport Association Vs.  Municipal Council of Mombasa, Mombasa High   Court Constitutional Petition No.6 of 2011. He further   relied  on a dictum  mentioned in the said case,  of  Lord  Denning,  in the case  of  Benjamin  Leonard  MacFaoy – Vs -  United  Africa  Ltd  ( 1962) AC  152. The good judge   stated as follows: -

“If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably   bad.  There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the court declare it to be so….”

4. On the other hand, Mr.  Karanja  conceded that service  of the two documents in issue  had not been effected. He however submitted that the parties addressed the matters in the defence to counterclaim by joining  issues.  He submitted  that  the  issues  agreed  to be for trial  are encompassed in  that  Defence  to  Counterclaim  and no  prejudice will be caused  if the same is served   today.

5. On service  of the witness  statements,  Mr  Karanja   submitted  that the same were filed  but  inadvertently  served  upon  the law firm of  M/s  Gordon  Ogolla  &  Co. Advocates  and  not  Mr.  Arusei.  He   submitted that the plaintiff should be allowed to call her witnesses for the sake of justice. He stated that these   witnesses have earlier testified and   no prejudice will   be caused to the defendant.  He applied that the documents be admitted out of time.

6. He submitted that the issues herein are separated from the issue of the striking out of the parties in the counterclaim .  He submitted that the question at hand is not  one  of an  illegality  but an irregularity.

7. In reply, Mr.  Arusei submitted inter alia that it cannot be said that there was an oversight of service since 2013.  He denied that the issues were joined and submitted that parties filed separate  issues. He further   submitted that none of the 2 witnesses has earlier   testified.

8. I have considered  the matter . What  I am being asked to do is to  order the striking out of the Reply to   Defence  and  Defence to  Counterclaim and  2 witness statements filed  by the  plaintiff and which were  not served.

9. First,   let  me  deal with   the submissions  that  since I struck  out 3  parties from the counterclaim  for want of service, then I must automatically  strike out  the two   documents for  want  of service. It was argued by Mr Arusei   that   the sword  of  justice  cuts both ways. That  may be so, but  that does  not  mean that  a court’s  hands  are tied and that it must  apply  the  “ an  eye  for an  eye” maxim.  Simply  because  the court  has   denied  an  application  made by  one  party  to the suit,  does not mean that to be fair and equal, then  any  application  made  by the other  party  must also be denied. That to me is skewed reasoning. A court must assess every   application on its own merits, not on the basis of whether or  not  it denied  the other  party  an  order in  an earlier application.

10. Let me give an analogy of a football match to drive the point home. If  player  A  is  tackled  by  player  B  and the referee denies a penalty, because of course it  thought that  that was  not a tackle  worthy of a  penalty , does   it  mean that if  player B  is  ruthlessly  tackled by  player   A in player  A’s  penalty  box,  then   because  player  A  was denied the earlier   penalty appeal,  player  B  must  be denied the  penalty?

11. It is the same case here. The fact   that I   struck   off some   persons   as defendants to the  1st  defendant’s  counterclaim  does not   mean  that  I must then strike  out every  unserved  pleading or document   filed by the  plaintiff.  I need and must consider every  application  on its  own  merits.

12. Neither do   I think that the lack of   service of a filed document is an “illegality”. An  illegality  is defined  in the  Concise  Oxford English  Dictionary , 11th  edition, as something  “ contrary to  or  forbidden  by  law” .

13. The Civil  Procedure  Rules  prescribe when pleadings and  documents  may be served,  but  it does not  say that  it is “ illegal” or  “ forbidden”  to  serve  such documents  thereafter. A party is at liberty to apply for service out of time and such application must be considered on reasons given. It is not a case of “  illegality”   and the court has discretion.

14. In our   case, Mr   Karanja has cited inadvertence.  Mistakes will continue being made as we are all human. In the case of the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim, I note that the same was filed on  29th  November  2011. There is inordinate time  lapse   for  not serving  it  in time.  But   I do  not   see what prejudice  the defendant stands  to suffer  if   I am  to admit it. The  plaintiff  in any  event has a plaint which addresses more  or less  the same  issues raised in  the  Defence  to counterclaim.  One could as well argue that there is a

“  joinder  of  issues”,  which   is not to be confused  with  “ agreed  issues”,  which  is what the  parties  believe  are subject to be determined in the trial.

15. On the question of failure to serve the witness statements.  I note that  the  drafting of the same show that they were to be served upon the law firm of M/s  Gordon Ogolla  & Co. Advocates.  Mr Karanja   submitted that they did serve   the said law firm.

16. I think this is a case of a pure mistake. There may have been confusion as the said firm was in these  proceedings  at some  point.   I do not  see the  justice  in denying   a  party  opportunity   to table his/her   witness because the  counsel  in drawing  and in service of the documents  presented the wrong  firm  of advocates. This may be compensated by  an order  of costs and  by  an order  allowing  the other party leeway and time to assess  whether  or not they  need to call an  additional   witness or rely on  additional  documents in light  of the  now  disclosed witnesses. The trial is yet to commence. I think it is immaterial whether or not they had earlier testified for the case is starting de novo.  (for  the  record, the  2  witnesses had not  earlier  testified ).

17. From my above discourse, I do  admit the Reply to Defence and Defence to Counterclaim filed on 29 November 2011 out of time. I also admit the witness statements and direct that the same be served forthwith. The defendants are at liberty to file any additional witness statement and /or documents in light of the above, within 30 days. Today’s costs will in any event  be shouldered by the  plaintiff.

18. It is so ordered.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 21st day of March, 2016.

MUNYAO SILA

JUDGE

ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT

AT NAKURU

In presence of :

Mr  Lawrence  Karanja   present  for   plaintiff

Mr  Arusei   present  for  defendant

Court  Assistant   :  Janet

MUNYAO SILA

JUDGE

ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT

AT NAKURU