[2006] KEHC 2125 (KLR)
The court found that since the 4th and 6th defendants reside in the United Kingdom, which is covered under section 95(3) of the Constitution, it is empowered to give directions for service out of jurisdiction. The court exercised its discretion under Order VI Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules to direct that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2125 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fulchand M Shah; Defendant: Panachand J. Shah & Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 261 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Directions for Service Out of Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Directions granted for service out of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Service Out of Jurisdiction, Directions for Service, Commonwealth Defendants
- 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
Fulchand M Shah
Plaintiff
Panachand J. Shah & Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Directions for Service Out of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should give directions for service of summons and plaint out of jurisdiction on defendants residing in the United Kingdom as required by Order VI Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the requirements of section 95(3) of the Constitution are satisfied for such service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that since the 4th and 6th defendants reside in the United Kingdom, which is covered under section 95(3) of the Constitution, it is empowered to give directions for service out of jurisdiction. The court exercised its discretion under Order VI Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules to direct that service of summons and plaint be effected personally on the 4th and 6th defendants. The Deputy Registrar was also directed to comply with Order 5 Rule 27, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to apply for further directions if necessary. No order as to costs was made.
Court Disposition
Directions granted for service out of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Service of the summons and plaint to be effected personally upon the 4th and 6th defendants.
- The Deputy Registrar to comply with Order 5 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Suit 261 of 2004
FULCHAND M SHAH…………………………....……………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PANACHAND J. SHAH & OTHERS………………..…….DEFENDANTS
RULING
The court on 28th April 2006 delivered a ruling in respect of a chamber summons dated 16th March 2006 seeking leave to serve 4th defendant with summons and plaint out of this jurisdiction. Those defendants are said to reside in the United Kingdom.
The court in that ruling did not give direction as required by Order VI Rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That rule provides:
“Where leave to serve a summons or notice of summons out of Kenya has been granted under rule 21, and the defendant is a commonwealth citizen as defined in subsection (1) (2) of Section 95 of the Constitution or resides in any of the countries for the time being mentioned n subsection (3) of that section, the summons shall be served in such manner as the court may direct.”
The plaintiff has come to court seeking those directions.
Since the 4th and the 6th defendants are resident in the United Kingdom subsection 3 of section 95 of the Constitution is satisfied and the court can therefore give directions.
The court grants the following directions.
(1)That service of the summons and plaint be effected upon the 4th and 6th defendants, hereof personally.
(2)That the Deputy Registrar do comply with Order 5 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
(3)That the plaintiff is granted liberty to apply for further directions.
(4) There shall be no orders as to costs.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
Dated and delivered this 16th June 2006.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE