[2010] KEHC 2834 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 2834 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was properly served with the hearing notice as evidenced by the affidavit of service on record. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, there was no indication that the respondent had filed any grounds of opposition...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 2834 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Awuor Mhunda; Respondent: Raphael Ogola Ochieng
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Busia
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 67 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Service of Process, Ex Parte Hearing
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Service of Process Ex Parte Hearing

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Awuor Mhunda

Applicant

Raphael Ogola Ochieng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Orders

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was properly served with the hearing notice for the application heard on 4.6.2002.
  2. 2 Whether failure to attend court by the applicant was justified due to lack of service.
  3. 3 Whether the orders made on 4.6.2002 and subsequent orders should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was properly served with the hearing notice as evidenced by the affidavit of service on record. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of proper service. Furthermore, there was no indication that the respondent had filed any grounds of opposition or replying affidavit to the application, implying that even if the applicant had attended, the application would likely have proceeded ex parte. Consequently, there was no merit in the application to set aside the orders, and it was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application to set aside the ruling delivered on 4.6.2002 and all subsequent orders is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.