[2016] KECA 382 (KLR)

[2016] KECA 382 (KLR)

The Court found that service of the hearing notice on Mutuli & Associates Advocates, who were not on record for the respondent and had not filed a notice of change of advocates, was improper. The proper firm on record was Mutuli & Apopo Advocates. This procedural error denied the respondent the right to be heard, a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KECA 382 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: City Council of Nairobi; Respondent: Woolwich Investments Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 231 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Grant of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal to be re-heard inter partes after proper service of hearing notice.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Right to Fair Hearing, Notice of Appeal, Advocate on Record
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Service of Process Right to Fair Hearing Notice of Appeal Advocate on Record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City Council of Nairobi

Appellant

Woolwich Investments Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Grant of Interlocutory Injunction

  1. 1 Whether service of hearing notice on the wrong firm of advocates invalidates the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was denied the right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal should be re-heard inter partes after proper service.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that service of the hearing notice on Mutuli & Associates Advocates, who were not on record for the respondent and had not filed a notice of change of advocates, was improper. The proper firm on record was Mutuli & Apopo Advocates. This procedural error denied the respondent the right to be heard, a fundamental right protected by Article 50(1) of the Constitution. As a result, any judgment delivered in breach of this right would be invalid. The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte proceedings and directed that the appeal be re-heard inter partes after proper service of the hearing notice on the advocates on record or, if they no longer exist,...

Court Disposition

Appeal to be re-heard inter partes after proper service of hearing notice.

Orders

  • The appeal shall be re-heard inter partes upon service of hearing notice on the firm of advocates on record for the respondent.
  • If the firm of advocates no longer exists, the hearing notice should be served on the respondent in any prescribed manner of service.