[2001] KECA 255 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal held that the applicant's counsel acted improperly by seeking and obtaining an ex parte extension of time in the High Court without serving the respondent's counsel, despite both parties' advocates practicing in Nairobi and the respondent's counsel having expressly refused consent for extension....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2001] KECA 255 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Balozi Housing Co-operative Society Limited; Respondent: Samuel Waiganjo Thuo t/a Waiganjo & Associates
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Miscellaneous Application 332 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for priority hearing declined; Notice of Motion to be relisted in the normal manner.
- Judges
- RO Kwach, EO O'Kubasu
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Conditional Leave to Defend, Ex Parte Applications, Notice of Motion, Extension of Time
- 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
Balozi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
Applicant
Samuel Waiganjo Thuo t/a Waiganjo & Associates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to be heard on its application for stay of execution after proceeding ex parte in the High Court.
- 2 Whether the ex parte extension of time obtained by the applicant in the High Court was proper under the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 3 Whether the applicant's conduct in seeking ex parte orders without notice to the respondent justified denial of a priority hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal held that the applicant's counsel acted improperly by seeking and obtaining an ex parte extension of time in the High Court without serving the respondent's counsel, despite both parties' advocates practicing in Nairobi and the respondent's counsel having expressly refused consent for extension. The relevant Civil Procedure Rule requires notice to affected parties unless delay would cause irreparable or serious mischief, which was not demonstrated in this case. The applicant failed to explain the delay in seeking extension or filing the present motion. The Court found that the applicant was undeserving of a priority hearing due to its conduct and declined to hear the...
Court Disposition
Application for priority hearing declined; Notice of Motion to be relisted in the normal manner.
Orders
- The applicant's Notice of Motion is declined for priority hearing.
- The application is to be relisted in the normal manner.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH, BOSIRE & O'KUBASU, JJ.A) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 332 OF 2001 (177/200 UR) BETWEEN
BALOZI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ...................................... APPLICANT AND SAMUEL WAIGANJO THUO T/A WAIGANJO & ASSOCIATES ........................ RESPONDENT
An application for stay of execution in an intended appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya, Milimani Commercial Courts at Nairobi (Hon. Commissioner of Assize Ransley) dated 12th September, 2001 in H.C.C.C NO. 161 of 2000) ******************* RULING OF THE COURT
The applicant Balozi Housing Co-operative Society Limited filed an application by way of Notice of Motion brought under Rule 5(2) (b) of the Court of Appeal Rules which application was filed in this Court on 27th September, 2001. The applicant was unhappy with the order of the superior court to the effect that the applicant should deposit Shs.20 million within 21 days failing which judgment would be entered in favour of the respondent.
When the application came up for hearing yesterday (4th October, 2001) Mr. Kembi Gitura for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the applicant should not be heard since the applicant had improperly proceeded ex parte in the High Court where it obtained an extension of time within which to comply with the aforesaid order.
In dealing with this preliminary objection the starting point is the ruling of the High Court. In his ruling the learned Commissioner of Assize (Mr. Ransley) concluded thus:-
"I think this is a case where conditional leave to defend should be given. I propose that the Defendant be and is hereby given conditional leave to defend on depositing with the Advocates of the parties in an interest earning account with a reputable bank a sum of Shs.20 million within 21 days from today. Failing which the plaintiff will have judgment as prayed".
The ruling was delivered on 12th September, 2001 so that the time within which to deposit the said sum of Shs.20 million expired on 2nd October, 2001. The applicant failed to comply with that requirement and instead filed an ex parte application before the High Court where it obtained an extenOsridoenr oLf. tri.m2e. of the Civil Procedure Rules under which we think the applicant proceeded in the High Court in seeking and obtaining extension of time provides:-
"2. No motion shall be made without notice to the parties affected thereby. Provided however that the Court, if satisfied that the del ay caused by proceeding in the ordinary way would or might entail irreparable or serious mischief, may make any order ex parte upon such terms as to costs or otherwise, and subject to such undertaking, if any as to the court seems just, and any party affec ted by such order may move to set it aside".
As already stated the ruling of the High Court was delivered on 12th September, 2001 and this application was not filed until 27th September, 2001. There is no explanation as to the delay in either seeking the extension or taking out the present motion. The advocates for both parties practice in Nairobi. Indeed, we were told that the applicant's counsel had telephoned the respondent's counsel seeking a consent for extension of time which request was promptly rejected by the respondent's counsel. It was therefore improper for the applicant's counsel to go behind the respondent's counsel's back and make an ex parte application for extension of time. In our view, that application in the High Court should have been served on the respondent's counsel. We think Mr. Kembi Gitura is right in raising the preliminary objection. We think that in the circumstances the applicant is undeserving of a hearing on a priority basis, and therefore decline to hear the applicant's Notice of Motion. It should be relisted in the normal manner.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 5th day of October, 2001.
R. O. KWACH
............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
S.E.O. BOSIRE
............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
E. O. O'KUBASU
............
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR