[2020] KEHC 3226 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 3226 (KLR)

The court found that while a stay order had been issued by the Kakamega High Court in Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2013, it was only valid for 14 days and had lapsed before the hearing and judgment in the trial court. However, the subsequent judgment in Kakamega HCCC 127 of 2013 provided clear directions on the handling...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 3226 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Chepsoi Dorcas; Appellant: Chepsoi Joel; Respondent: Antony Simiyu Wangila
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 95 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; ex-parte judgment set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing
Judges
SN Riechi
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Ex Parte Judgment, Natural Justice, Territorial Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Stay of Proceedings Ex Parte Judgment Natural Justice Territorial Jurisdiction

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chepsoi Dorcas

Appellant

Chepsoi Joel

Appellant

Antony Simiyu Wangila

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether there was a valid stay order in force at the time the trial court proceeded to hearing and judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the ex-parte judgment was properly entered for non-attendance by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while a stay order had been issued by the Kakamega High Court in Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2013, it was only valid for 14 days and had lapsed before the hearing and judgment in the trial court. However, the subsequent judgment in Kakamega HCCC 127 of 2013 provided clear directions on the handling of all suits arising from the accident involving motor vehicle KAM 367L, including the present suit. The trial magistrate's judgment was delivered almost two years after the High Court's decision, which set aside related proceedings and required remittance for fresh hearing before a competent court. The trial court's failure to consider the binding High Court decision rendered...

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; ex-parte judgment set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The judgment of the trial court is set aside.