Automated Summary
Key Facts
This case involved a dispute between Meditec Systems Limited and Plaza Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ltd, along with two individual defendants. The defendants sought to strike out the plaint for being an abuse of court process, arguing that the same parties were already litigating over the same subject matter in another case (E190 of 2023). The court found that while both cases involved Meditec Systems Limited as plaintiff and similar commercial arrangements (loan facilities for medical equipment), the defendants, agreements (Hire Purchase Loans vs. Operating Lease), and banks involved (Prime Bank vs. Jamii Bora Bank) were distinct. The court concluded the suits were not directly and substantially the same, dismissing the application as lacking merit.
Issues
Whether the current suit should be struck out for being sub judice and an abuse of the court's process due to a previously instituted suit between the same parties over the same subject matter.
Holdings
The court dismissed the defendants' application seeking to strike out the suit for being an abuse of the court's process. The ruling concluded that the current suit (Civil Case E342 of 2023) and the earlier suit (HCCOMM No. E190 of 2023) involve different parties and distinct agreements, thereby failing the sub judice test. The court emphasized that the subject matter and parties in both cases are not directly and substantially the same, as the current suit concerns a Hire Purchase Loan Agreement with Prime Bank Limited, while the earlier suit involves an Operating Lease Agreement with Jamii Bora Bank Limited.
Remedies
The defendants' application seeking to strike out the plaint and challenging jurisdiction was dismissed with costs by the court, which found the application lacked merit.
Legal Principles
- The court considered whether the present suit is res judicata, noting that neither of the two suits has been determined, thus the current suit cannot be considered res judicata.
- The court analyzed the sub judice doctrine, concluding that the suits involve different parties and distinct subject matters, hence the current suit is not sub judice.
Precedent Name
- Ephraim Miano Thamaini v Nancy Wanjiru Wangai & 2 Others
- Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 16 Others (Interested Parties)
- Cooperative Merchant Bank versus Geroge Fredrick Wekesa
Cited Statute
- Civil Procedure Act
- Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
Rhoda Rutto
Passage Text
- From the contents of the two plaints, it is evident that the plaintiff is alleging a breach of two different agreements, each involving two distinct banks. Therefore, the issues for determination in the current suit and in Commercial Case No. E190 of 2023 between Meditec Systems Limited and Nairobi Imaging Solutions Limited are not directly and substantially the same. Consequently, this application does not pass the test.
- Notably, the defendants in the two suits are different therefore this ground fails.
- The upshot of the above is that the application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.