[21] It is settled law that the jurisdiction to strike out is to be used sparingly and is appropriate only in plain and obvious cases. “When dealing with such applications the court’s function is limited to the scrutiny of the statement of claim. It tests the particulars which have been given in each averment to see whether they are sufficient to establish a cause of action. It is not the court’s function to examine the evidence to see whether the plaintiff can prove his case or to assess it’s prospects of success...”2  [22] “A person who moves to the court must state a case that is known to, or created by law. The case as stated must disclose sufficient facts that are material to the issue to render the claim viable and which would permit the person who has to answer the case to know what case he has to meet it must disclose a reasonable cause of action which is simply stated as “a factual situation the existence to which entitles a party to obtain from a court a remedy against another person”3.   [23] In considering applications to strike out statements of case the court ought to bear in mind that … “so long as the statement of claim or the particulars disclose some cause of action, or raises some question fit to be decided by the judge or jury the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking out”4.  [24] At this stage of the proceedings, the court is not required to carry out a detailed and minute examination of the truth of the facts, allegations and documents in the case to see whether there is a cause of action contained therein. “...In considering an application to strike out a statement of claim, the truth of the allegations contained in the pleading is assumed”5.  2  Per Millet J in the Lonhro Case [1991]4 All E R 965   Per Lord Diplock in Letang –v‐ Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 at p 242  4  Re: Davey –v‐ Benton [1893] 1 QB 185, Moore –v‐ Lawson(1915) 31 TLR 48 CA, Wenlock –v‐ Maloney  [1965] 2 All E R 871 (CA).  5  Per William JA in M4 Investments –v‐ Clico (Barbados) Ltd. (2006)  68 WIR 65 at Page 82, paragraph 36.  3   6