[2019] KEHC 12240 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff's application was properly served on the Defendants' advocates, who remain on record as no application to cease acting had been filed. The Defendants failed to file any response or attend the hearing, rendering the application unopposed. In the absence of opposition and upon...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 12240 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Azim Sameja t/a Business 2008; Defendant: Lakhasmshi Virpal Shah; Defendant: Kamlaben Lakhasmsh Shah; Defendant: Sureshsandra Lakhasmsh Shah; Defendant: Ashokumar Lakhasmsh Shah; Defendant: Harsha Lakhasmsh Shah; Defendant: Pritmalkha Shah t/a High Park Investments
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 689 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion Application
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application allowed as unopposed.
- Judges
- CM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Unopposed Applications, Representation by Advocate
- 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
Azim Sameja t/a Business 2008
Plaintiff
Lakhasmshi Virpal Shah
Defendant
Kamlaben Lakhasmsh Shah
Defendant
Sureshsandra Lakhasmsh Shah
Defendant
Ashokumar Lakhasmsh Shah
Defendant
Harsha Lakhasmsh Shah
Defendant
Pritmalkha Shah t/a High Park Investments
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Unopposed Notice of Motion Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application should be allowed as unopposed.
- 2 Whether the Defendants' advocates are properly on record despite protest.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff's application was properly served on the Defendants' advocates, who remain on record as no application to cease acting had been filed. The Defendants failed to file any response or attend the hearing, rendering the application unopposed. In the absence of opposition and upon consideration of the application and supporting affidavit, the court allowed the application in terms of prayer No. (2), with costs in the cause.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application allowed as unopposed.
Orders
- Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated and filed on 9th May, 2019 is allowed in terms of prayer No. (2).
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 689 OF 2001
AZIM SAMEJA T/A BUSINESS 2008. .......................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
LAKHASMSHI VIRPAL SHAH
KAMLABEN LAKHASMSH SHAH
SURESHSANDRA LAKHASMSH SHAH
ASHOKUMAR LAKHASMSH SHAH
HARSHA LAKHASMSH SHAH
PRITMALKHA SHAH
T/A HIGH PARK INVESTMENTS........................DEFENDANTS
RULING
It is now 12. 41pm and there is no attendance by the Defendants and /or their Advocates M/S E.W. Kamuyu & Co. Advocates despite being served as endured in the affidavit of service of Aggrey Mutiemberi Asumba that was sworn and filled on 13th May, 2019.
I have noted that the said Advocates accepted service of the hearing notice under protest on the grounds that their clients collected files from them and they do not know their whereabouts. The said Advocates have not filed an application to cease acting for the Defendants and for all purposes and intents, they are deemed to be the Defendant’s Advocates on record.
There is no response to the Plaintiff’s application making it unopposed. Although Mbogholi Msagha J. directed on 9th May, 2019 that any Judge in the Civil Division could hear and determine this matter.
Following directions that were given pursuant to the Plaintiff’s Advocates letter dated and filed on 15th May, 2019 to the Deputy Registrar High Court of Kenya Civil Division, this matter was allocated to me for hearing.
Accordingly, having looked at the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion Application dated and filed on 9th May, 2019 and the supporting affidavit of Azim A. Sameja abd all the enclosures therein and having heard his Counsel and having noted that the said Application is unopposed as no response has been filed thereto by the Defendants, I hereby allow the same in terms of prayer No. (2) therein. Costs shall be in the cause. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 AT 12. 50PM.
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
16. 05. 2019