The court possesses inherent powers to strike out claims that do not comply with procedural rules, emphasizing the necessity for proper pleading and the prevention of abuse of process.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendant a lawyer, is for the Defendant's conduct in handling a petition on behalf of the Plaintiffs, bearing the registration number D-26NCC-115-2010.

[2] After perusing the Plaintiff's claim, the Court struck off the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim for being defective in being noncompliance with the provisions of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules").

Defective Statement Of Claim (SOC)

[3] The 1st defect is that the entire contents of the Petition is reproduced in the SOC. This reproduction is unnecessary and not allowed as it forms part of evidence to be adduced during the trial. Only facts and not the evidence that should be pleaded in the SOC.

[4] The reproduction of the entire petition is a clear cut breach of O 18 r 7(1) which states as follows:

1) Subject to the provisions of this rule and rr 10, 11 and 12,every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summaryform of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claimor defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those factsare to be proved, and the statement shall be as brief as the nature of thecase admits.

[Emphasis Mine]

[5] From the facts pleaded in para 6 of the SOC it is clear that the petition ended in a consent judgment being recorded on 7 June 2011. The Plaintiffs in the subsequent paragraphs of the SOC allege that the Defendant was negligent in allowing the consent judgment to be recorded.

[6] The Plaintiffs are claiming special damages for the purported negligence of the Defendant.

[7] There are 2 defects in the facts as pleaded above in the SOC. The first is that the Plaintiffs by alleging negligence of the Defendant are questioning the propriety of consent judgment itself. Any issues with regards the propriety of the consent judgment should be by way of application to the Court where the consent judgment was recorded. The Plaintiffs present claim is a backdoor challenge to the consent judgment recorded. This is a clear abuse of the process of Court.

[8] The 2nd defect is that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded the facts entitling them to the special damages. Nor has the Plaintiffs particularised the items of the special damages in the SOC.

[9] This defect contravenes O 18 r 12(1) and 2 of the Rules which is as follows:

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), every pleading shall contain thenecessary particulars of any claim, defence or other matter pleadedincluding, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words

[Emphasis Mine]

(a) particulars of any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence on which the party pleading relies; and

(b) where a party pleading alleges any condition of the mind of anyperson, whether any disorder or disability of mind or any malice,fraudulent intention or other condition of mind except knowledge, particulars of the facts on which the party relies.

(1A) No party shall quantify any claim or counterclaim for general damages.

(2) Where it is necessary to give particulars of debt, expenses ordamages and those particulars exceed three folios, they shall be set outin a separate document referred to in the pleading and the pleading shallstate whether the document has already been served and, if so, when, or isto be served with the pleading.

[Emphasis Mine]

Powers Of The Court In Striking Out The SOC

[10] The Court has been given wide powers under O 34 of the Rules to ensure a just, expeditious and economical disposal of a case. Order 34 r 1 states;

[1] Orders and directions for just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings (O 34 r 1)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in these Rules, the Court may, at any time after the commencement of proceedings,of its own motion, direct any party or parties to t