PLAINTIFF WRITTEN SUBMISSION

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The defendant was issued with a demand notice dated…………… specifically demanding her to re-pay
back Ksh. 88,000. which she borrowed from the plaintiff. On response to the demand, she confirmed the
amount and requested to settle the said debt.
It is the plaintiff’s case that upon expiry of demand and nonpayment. This suit was filed on
the……………………claiming the aforesaid amount.
The defendant entered appearance and filed her defense dated………………On her defense.
A. Whether the defendant defense dated…………………….is admissible?
The plaintiff’s case is for specific amount of Ksh. 88,000. In her defense, she denies every particular of
claim without specifically rebutting each and every paragraphs as set forward with substantial evidence.
Then it means that the defendant made a general denial to a specific claim and such defense become
wholly inadmissible.
Courts have made several judicial decisions that a general and mere denial is wholly inadmissible in the
following cases; -
AUTHORITY: -
Raghbir Singh Chatte v National Bank of Kenya. Where the court followed the wordings of Jessel, M.R.
in Thorp v Holdsworth. It was held that, in an action for a debt or liquidated demand in money, a mere
denial of the debt is wholly inadmissible.
Brite Print {K} LTD v Attorney General {2001} eKLR HCCC No. 1096 of 2000.The court made the
following findings.
“The defendant in this case does not, in his pleadings clearly disclaim his liability to the plaintiff. It is not
enough for him to say that he ‘makes no admission of the matter therein set out ‘The allegation that
there was no contract between him and the plaintiff is unnecessary, as it does not dispute the supply of
goods to him.
B. Whether this court can admit matter which haven’t been pleaded
Here we shall consider the defendants defense and her written statement.
She claims on her defense, that she hadn’t received any demand notice.
Further she denies that she hadn’t received Ksh. 88,000 from the defendant but she agrees to have
received Ksh. 40,000 from the plaintiff.
Evidence on cross-examination
On cross examination she confirms that she received demand notice and even responded to it asking to be
given time to settle plaintiffs claim.
she confirms the amount demanded being of Ksh. 88,000 was not denied from Thus the figure of Ksh.
88,00- from the demand letter was outrightly uncontroverted.
When cross examined on her defense. She confirms that the Ksh. 40,000 was never pleaded from her
defense and therefore the unleaded amount was a new fact which came to the plaintiff knowledge and this
Honorable court while cross examining the defense. Thus, such new matters are ambush to this court.
AUTHORITY; world Explorers Safaris Limited v Cosmopolitan Travel Limited & Another{2021}
eKLR Civil Appeal No. E032 of 2020. Where the court stated at page 34 as follows;
“The issues in civil cases should be raised on the pleadings and if an issue arises which doesn’t appear
from the pleadings in their original form, then an appropriate amendment should be sought. Parties should
not be unduly encouraged to rely, in the hope, perhaps, of obtaining some tactical advantage, to treat
unpleaded issue as fully investigated.
In Chalicha FCS Ltd v Odhiambo & 9 Others {1987} KLR 182, the court stated that. Cases must be
decided on the issues on record. The court has no power to make an order, unless by consent, which is
outside pleadings.
Therefore, bringing new facts by the defense is Shum and nullity and
C. whether the defense admission is a direct entry of judgement in favor of the plaintiff case

 Admission on demand Letter

The defendant on her response to the demand letter admitted that she owed the plaintiff the claimed sum
and requested time to settle it.
After this suit was filed. On her Defense she denies having received a demand notice.
When cross examined, she confirmed receipt of the demand letter and also confirms that no where on her
response did, she dispute the amount owed being Ksh. 88,000
 Oral admission before court
On her witness statement she states that she received Ksh.40,000 and not Ksh. 80,000 as per demand
notice. She states that the date of receipt of the said money was on 22 nd Of September 2022 and not on the
17th Of September 2022 as stated on the demand letter.
When cross examined she confirms that on her response to demand letter she never disputed the correct
date of receipt of money being on the 17 th of September 2022 and further confirms to this court that no
place on her defense did she mention the date of 22nd of September 2022.
Therefore, this court can infer that the demand letter was issue and also, she agreed and admitted all the
facts set out on the demand letter.
Your honor the law under Admission is governed under order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Order 13 Rule 2 stipulates as follows; -
“Any party may at any stage of a suit, where admission of facts has been made either on the pleadings or
otherwise, apply to the court for judgement or order or upon such admission as he may be entitled to.”
AUTHORITY; Choitram v Nazari. In which the court of appeal stated that a court should examine the
pleadings carefully in order to establish whether there are no specific denial and no definite refusal to
admit allegation of facts. The court went on to hold that admissions of facts need not be on the pleadings;
they may be on correspondence or documents, or oral because the rule uses the word “or otherwise.”
Still, it is the same defendant who agreed to settle the plaintiff’s claim from her demand notice and after
this suit was filed, she denies particulars of claims as set out after this suit was filed. Thus, giving
contradicting evidence.
Therefore, the defendant should be estopped from making assertions that are contradictory to his or her
prior position on certain matters before court.
He who comes to court must come with clean hands. The defendant needs to be open and transparent. She
is using the process of court to subvert cause of Justice.
Authority: - Synergy Industrial Credit Limited v Oxyplus International Limited & 2 others {2021}
eKLR Civil Case No. E 077 of 2021
Therefore, we pray that this Honorable court Strick out the defendants defense and judgement be entered
in favor of the plaintiff.

Dated on this……………………………………………………………day
of……………………………………………2023
OMBIRO J. OGACHI
……………………………………………………………………………………………….
PLAINTIFFS ADVOCATE