[2012] KEHC 485 (KLR)
The court found that the defences raised by the 1st and 2nd Defendants disclosed bona fide triable issues, including denial of the existence of a contract and the assertion of res judicata due to prior settlement. The court emphasized that its discretion to set aside a default judgment must be exercised judicially,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 485 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Al-Karin Badrudin Suderji; Plaintiff: Jitendra Lakhamshi Dedhia; Defendant: Capital Construction Co. Ltd (also known as Capital Construction Ltd); Defendant: Venkata Chainulu Ganti; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 28 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
- Outcome
- Application allowed; default judgment set aside; defences deemed duly filed; costs to defendants.
- Judges
- CM Njagi, DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Default Judgment, Ex Parte Judgment, Judicial Discretion, Triable Issues
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Al-Karin Badrudin Suderji
Plaintiff
Jitendra Lakhamshi Dedhia
Plaintiff
Capital Construction Co. Ltd (also known as Capital Construction Ltd)
Defendant
Venkata Chainulu Ganti
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the default judgment entered against the defendants should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the defendants have raised bona fide triable issues in their defences.
- 3 Whether the delay in filing the defences was excusable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defences raised by the 1st and 2nd Defendants disclosed bona fide triable issues, including denial of the existence of a contract and the assertion of res judicata due to prior settlement. The court emphasized that its discretion to set aside a default judgment must be exercised judicially, particularly where the amount in dispute is substantial and the defences are not frivolous. Although the delay in filing the defences was inadvertent, the court determined that justice required the defendants be allowed to defend the suit on the merits. Consequently, the default judgment was set aside, the defences were deemed duly filed, and the defendants were ordered to pay...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; default judgment set aside; defences deemed duly filed; costs to defendants.
Orders
- The default judgment entered on 22nd February, 2010 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants is set aside.
- The 1st and 2nd Applicants' defences dated 9th March and filed on 11th March, 2010 are deemed as duly filed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Civil Suit 28 of 2010 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if !mso]> <style> st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]
AL-KARIN BADRUDIN SUDERJI…….......…………….....1ST PLAINTIFF
JITENDRA LAKHAMSHI DEDHIA…...........……………….2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
(alson known as Capital Construction Ltd…………...1ST DEFENDANT
VENKATA CHAINULU GANTI………............…………....2ND DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL…………….......………………..3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
By this application, the Defendant/Applicants pray for orders that the default judgment issued against them on 22nd February, 2010 be set aside, and that the Defendant’s defences filed on 11th March, 2010 be deemed as duly filed. The application is brought by a Chamber Summons dated 27th September, 2010 and taken out under Order 1XA Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Sections 1A, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Venkata Chainulu Ganti and is based on the ground that the default judgment is in respect of a demand which is not liquidated; that the applicants have a merited defence to the Respondent’s claim; and that the belated filing of the Applicant’s defences was inadvertent.
At the hearing of the application Mr. Wandabwa appeared for the Applicant while the Respondents were represented by Mr. Owuor. After considering the pleadings and the submissions of the respective counsel, I find that this application hinges on setting aside an ex parte judgment. The law and procedure for doing so is that the court has an unfettered discretion to set aside such a judgment but like or other discretionary powers, that discretion must be exercised judicially. Where there is no proper service of summons to enter appearance to the suit, the resorting default judgment is an irregular one which a court must set aside ex debito justitiae. Where the default judgment is a regular one, however, the court still wields an unfettered discretion to set aside such judgment upon such terms as are just as ordained by Order 1XA of the Civil Procedure Rules. This applies especially to those cases where the defendant has a defence on merit. Such a defence does not mean a defence which must succeed, but one which discloses bona fide triable issues for adjudication at the trial.
It is noteworthy that the subject matter of this dispute is a colossal sum of money amounting to KShs. 215 Million. This is not a small amount of money by any standards. The 1st Defendant’s proposed defence denies that there ever existed any contract(s) between itself and the Plaintiffs regarding the said sum of KShs 215 Million. It also denied that it requested for and was advanced the said sum of KShs. 215 Million as alleged in the Plaint.
Similarly, the 2nd Defendant pleads that the sum claimed against it is the same as that in Winding Up Cause No. 4 of 2009 in which the claim against the 2nd defendant was settled and wholly compromised. Consequently, the 2nd Defendant pleads that the present suit is Res Judicata. Secondly, the 2nd Defendant further denies that there was an agreement for the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of KShs. 215 Million.
Against the above background, it is my considered view that these defences raise bona fide triable issues and that they should be given an opportunity for ventilation at a trial. For these reasons, I allow the application and make the following orders-
(a)The default judgment entered on 22nd February, 2010 against the 1st and 2nd Defendants be and is hereby set aside.
(b)The 1st and 2nd Applicants defences dated 9th March, and filed on 11th March, 2010 be and are hereby deemed as duly filed.
(c)Although the belated filing of the above defences was inadvertent on the part of the Defendants, it was still their fault and I therefore direct that the Defendants will meet the costs of this application.
L. NJAGI
JUDGE
DATEDand DELIVERED ant NAIROBIthis 15th day of November, 2012
OGOLA
JUDGE