[2006] KEHC 162 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements by serving the Attorney General with the requisite notice under the Government Proceedings Act and by serving the summons and plaint. The Defendant failed to file an appearance or defence within the prescribed period and did not attend...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 162 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David M. Muthee t/a Davetronic Company; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 405 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Enter Judgment in Default of Appearance and Defence
- Outcome
- application allowed; judgment entered for the Plaintiff in default of appearance and defence
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Default Judgment, Government Proceedings, Contractual Debt, Service of Process
- 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
David M. Muthee t/a Davetronic Company
Plaintiff
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Leave to Enter Judgment in Default of Appearance and Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to leave to apply for judgment against the Government in default of appearance and defence.
- 2 Whether the requirements of service and notice under the Government Proceedings Act and Civil Procedure Rules were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff had complied with all statutory requirements by serving the Attorney General with the requisite notice under the Government Proceedings Act and by serving the summons and plaint. The Defendant failed to file an appearance or defence within the prescribed period and did not attend the hearing of the application for leave to enter judgment. The court held that, in the absence of any response or opposition from the Defendant and in light of the Plaintiff's compliance with procedural requirements, the Plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought. Leave was granted to the Plaintiff to apply for judgment in default, and judgment was entered for the claimed sum,...
Court Disposition
application allowed; judgment entered for the Plaintiff in default of appearance and defence
Orders
- Leave is granted to the Plaintiff to apply for judgment against the Defendant in default of appearance and defence.
- Judgment is entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for Kshs.4,341,432 together with interest at court rate from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
Civil Case 405 of 2006
DAVID M. MUTHEE T/ADAVETRONIC COMPANY ………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ATTORNEY GENERAL…….…….....................................….DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff has brought a Chamber Summons application dated 27th October, 2006. The Plaintiff has come under Order IXA rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Plaintiff seeks orders that leave be granted to the Plaintiff to apply for judgement against the Defendant in default of an appearance and defence and that judgement be entered as prayed against the Defendant. The affidavit in support of the application was sworn by the Plaintiff’s advocate Samuel Njenga Mbugua. He states that he has the conduct of this matter and was instructed by the Plaintiff to file suit against the Defendant claiming Kshs.4,341,432/= being an amount owing to the Plaintiff under a contract of service with the Judiciary. Notice was given to the Honourable the Attorney General dated 8th June, 2006 as required by the Government Proceedings Act Cap 40. The said notice was duly received by the Defendant’s office on 9th June, 2006. The Defendant on receiving that notice wrote to the Registrar of the High Court seeking instructions on the claim. The Plaintiff subsequently filed suit on 26th July, 2006. The summons and Plaint was served on the Defendant on 14th August, 2006. The Defendant ought to have filed memorandum of appearance on or before the 29th August, 2006. Plaintiff’s advocate stated that the Defendant had not communicated with his firm seeking extension of time to file its pleadings in opposition to the Plaintiff’s claim. That it is in the interest of justice in view of the failure to file the pleadings as stipulated that judgement be entered as prayed in favour of the Plaintiff.
I confirm that I have perused the Plaintiff’s application, its affidavit in support and annextures thereof. Indeed the Plaintiff did give the Honourable the Attorney General Notice as required by Cap 40. I have also found that the Defendant was served with summons and the Plaint on 14th August, 2006. I have perused the court record and I have found that the Defendant has failed to file an appearance or a Defence as required. Order IXA Rule 7 provides as follows:-
“No judgement in default of appearance or pleading may be entered against the government without the leave of the court and any application for leave shall be served not less than seven days before the return day”.
Having considered the plaintiff’s application I find that the same is merited. The Defendants were served with the application on 12th October, 2006. When the matter came for hearing on 1st November, 2006 the Defendants did not attend court. Accordingly the court would not deny the Plaintiff the prayers that are sought. The court grants the following orders:-
(1)That leave be and is hereby issued to the Plaintiff to apply for judgement against the Defendant in default of appearance and of filing defence.
(2)That judgement be and is hereby entered in favour of the Plaintiff as against the Defendant for Kshs.4,341,432/= together with interest at court rate from the date of filing suit until payment in full.
(3)The Plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit.
Dated and delivered this 27th day of November, 2006.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE