[2002] KEHC 35 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 35 (KLR)

The court found that the service of the hearing notice was questionable as it was effected by a person not licensed to serve court processes at the material time. Additionally, the trial proceeded while an application was pending, and the plaintiff's advocate did not inform the court of this fact. These procedural...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KEHC 35 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited; Defendant: Worldin Tours & Travel Limited; Defendant: Azmina Hernandez Juma
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 91 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Outcome
application allowed; ex parte judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Service of Process, Banker Customer Relationship
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Service of Process Banker Customer Relationship

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fidelity Commercial Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Worldin Tours & Travel Limited

Defendant

Azmina Hernandez Juma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte judgment should be set aside due to improper service of the hearing notice.
  2. 2 Whether the pending application at the time of trial affected the validity of the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether there existed a banker-customer relationship giving rise to the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the service of the hearing notice was questionable as it was effected by a person not licensed to serve court processes at the material time. Additionally, the trial proceeded while an application was pending, and the plaintiff's advocate did not inform the court of this fact. These procedural irregularities justified setting aside the ex parte judgment to allow the defendants an opportunity to be heard on the merits. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the judgment in the interest of justice and directed the parties to prepare the suit for trial within 30 days.

Court Disposition

application allowed; ex parte judgment set aside

Orders

  • The ex parte judgment delivered on 6.5.2002 is set aside.
  • Parties to prepare the suit for trial and set it down for hearing within 30 days.