[2014] KEHC 8672 (KLR)
The court held that Order 5 Rule 22(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides an exception to the general requirements for service outside jurisdiction, allowing the court to inform a person outside jurisdiction of proceedings affecting rights or property within the jurisdiction. Although a formal application is not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 8672 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Elias Muturi Mwangi; Defendant: LSG Lufthansa Services Europa/Afrika GmbH; Defendant: LSG Sky Chefs Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 154 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Service Outside Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Application for service outside jurisdiction by courier allowed.
- Judges
- F Gikonyo
- Legal Topics
- Service Outside Jurisdiction, Order 5 Rule 22, Copyright Infringement, Urgent Applications
- 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
Elias Muturi Mwangi
Plaintiff
LSG Lufthansa Services Europa/Afrika GmbH
Defendant
LSG Sky Chefs Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Service Outside Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should permit service of the application dated 23rd April, 2014 on the 1st Respondent outside the jurisdiction by courier under Order 5 Rule 22(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether a formal application is required for such service under the said rule.
- 3 Whether the urgency and nature of the case justify deviation from the prescribed method of service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Order 5 Rule 22(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides an exception to the general requirements for service outside jurisdiction, allowing the court to inform a person outside jurisdiction of proceedings affecting rights or property within the jurisdiction. Although a formal application is not an absolute requirement, it is preferable for clarity and fairness. In this case, the subject matter involved copyright, a right within intellectual property, justifying invocation of the exception. The court found the urgency claimed by the applicant was not fully demonstrated but, upon perusal of the pleadings, determined that the case was apt for the exception. The court...
Court Disposition
Application for service outside jurisdiction by courier allowed.
Orders
- The applicant is permitted to transmit the application dated 23rd April, 2014 to the 1st Respondent by reputable international courier.
- The transmission is solely to inform the 1st Respondent of the nature or existence of the proceedings, not to exercise jurisdiction over them.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COUR OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO 154 OF 2014
ELIAS MUTURI MWANGI..........................................................................PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. LSG LUFTHANSA SERVICES EUROPA/AFRIKA GMBH
2. LSG SKY CHEFS LIMITED..............................................................DEFENDANTS
RULING
Informing a Person outside Jurisdiction of process of court
[1] Service of court process on a person outside the jurisdiction of the court is specifically provided for under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules (hereafter the CPR). And the prescriptions as to how it should be done have also been provided for under the said Order. However, Rule 22(3) of Order 5 of the CPR creates a kind of exception to the specific requirements on service of court process outside the jurisdiction of the court in the following manner:
Nothing in this rule shall affect any practice or power of the court under which, when lands, funds, choses in action, rights or property within the jurisdiction are sought to be dealt with or affected, the court may (without affecting to exercise jurisdiction over any person out of the jurisdiction) cause such person to be informed of the nature or existence of the proceedings with a view to such person having an opportunity of claiming, opposing, or otherwise intervening.
[2] The Applicant sought to utilize Rule 22(3) of Order 5 of the CPR and asked the court to allow him to serve the application dated 23rd April, 2014 on the 1st Respondent by way of courier. The Applicant informed the court that 1st Respondent is resident in Germany, and the suggested mode of transmission of the application to the 1st Respondent will only serve as a means of informing the 1st Respondent of the nature or existence of the proceedings with a view to such person having an opportunity of claiming, opposing, or otherwise intervening.The reason given by the Applicant are that; 1) the application is urgent and was indeed brought under certificate of urgency; and 2) the urgency thereof may not allow time to follow the prescribed method of service.
[3] Mrs Otava opposed the application and emphasized that there is need for a formal application to be filed in court on the request to inform the 1st Respondent of the application dated 23rd April, 2014. She also canvassed another issue; that all proceedings should be had only after the 1st Respondent has been informed of these proceedings.
COURT TAKES THE FOLLOWING VIEW
[4] I take the view that under Rule 22(3) of Order 5 of the CPR, there is really no absolute or strict requirement that a formal application should be filed. Except, it is desirable for the party applying to adopt an approach which will enable a proper laying of the request before court and allowing the parties to engage meaningfully on the request made. Ordinarily, a formal application supported by an affidavit or concise grounds would be preferable. I illustrate this by way of example; the application herein was made orally and did not create much room for Mrs Otava to answer to it in an effective manner. Equally, although the Applicant stated that the application was urgent, he was not able to demonstrate to the court that this case relates to rights or property which would need immediate relief. That surely is a requirement under the Rule and would need a careful and meticulous presentation. The Applicant just left to the court to grope in the voluminous pleadings to ascertain that aspect. That is most untidy.
[5] Having said that, I have perused the pleadings and reveal that the case herein is about infringement of copyright which is a right within the intellectual property rights. It is an apt case on which the exception to the general rules of service outside the jurisdiction of the court would be invoked. Accordingly, I allow the application and direct that the Applicant do transmit the application dated 23rd April, 2014 to the 1st Respondent by a reputable courier that carries out international mail and parcel courier. The transmission is allowed by the court, without affecting to exercise jurisdiction over any person out of the jurisdiction, under Order 5 Rule 22(3) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and is only meant to inform the 1st Respondent of the nature or existence of the proceedings with a view to such person having an opportunity of claiming, opposing, or otherwise intervening. It is so ordered.
[6] With regard to the other issue on the fate of these proceedings as we await compliance with the order of the court issued under paragraph 5 above, the court is hesitant to issue a general prohibition especially because of the nature of these proceedings. Instead, the court is of the view that a hearing date should be taken by the parties so that the hearing date will also be transmitted together with the application in the manner order in paragraph 5 above.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nairobi this 29th day of April, 2014
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE
Mwenda Advocate for the Applicant
No appearance for the 1st Respondent
Mrs Otava Advocate for the 2nd Respondent
F. GIKONYO
JUDGE