[2023] KEELC 17605 (KLR)
The court found that although the Defendants' counsel had previously received process at the email address used by the Plaintiff, the official email address provided in the Memorandum of Appearance was different. There was no explanation as to why the Plaintiff's counsel did not use the official email address. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 17605 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hashi Energy Ltd; Respondent: County Government of Kisumu; Respondent: City Management Board, Kisumu; Respondent: Michael Abala Wanga
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E015 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- E Asati
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Service of Process, Email Service, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Hashi Energy Ltd
Applicant
County Government of Kisumu
Respondent
City Management Board, Kisumu
Respondent
Michael Abala Wanga
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proceedings conducted ex parte on April 26, 2022 should be set aside.
- 2 Whether service of the hearing notice was properly effected on the Defendants' advocate.
- 3 Whether the Defendants should be allowed to defend the suit and prosecute their counter-claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the Defendants' counsel had previously received process at the email address used by the Plaintiff, the official email address provided in the Memorandum of Appearance was different. There was no explanation as to why the Plaintiff's counsel did not use the official email address. The court held that justice would be best served by giving the Defendants an opportunity to present their defence and counter-claim, especially since the Respondent could be compensated by an award of costs. The court exercised its discretion to set aside the ex parte proceedings and allowed the Defendants to participate in the case, subject to payment of thrown away costs to the...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The order made on April 26, 2022 closing the Plaintiff’s case is set aside.
- The order made on April 26, 2022 closing the Defence case is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Hashi Energy Ltd v County Government of Kisumu & 2 others (Environment & Land Case E015 of 2020) [2023] KEELC 17605 (KLR) (26 January 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 17605 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Environment & Land Case E015 of 2020
E Asati, J
January 26, 2023
Between
Hashi Energy Ltd
Applicant
and
County Government of Kisumu
1st Respondent
City Management Board, Kisumu
2nd Respondent
Michael Abala Wanga
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. This ruling is in respect of the Defendants’/Applicants’ Notice of Motion application dated May 17, 2022 and filed in court on May 18, 2022. It seeks for orders inter alia that the proceedings conducted herein on April 26, 2022 be set aside and the Defendant be allowed to defend the suit and prosecute their counter-claim. The application is supported by the averment contained in the Supporting Affidavit of Edwin Mong’eri Advocate, sworn on May 17, 2022.
2. The application was opposed vide the Replying Affidavit of Rodney Odhiambo Onyango, Advocate sworn on May 19, 2022 and the annextures thereto.
3. I have read the application, the Supporting Affidavit and written submissions dated November 7, 2022, filed on behalf of the defendant by the firm of Mong’eri Kinyanjui & Company Advocates I have also read the Replying affidavit sworn on May 19, 2022 by Rodney Odhiambo Oluoch Advocate in response to the application.
4. The Applicants’ explanation for failure to participate in the proceedings that are sought to be set aside is that they were not informed of the hearing date. That they came to learn that the suit had proceeded to hearing ex parte from a clerk in the Plaintiff’s advocate’s office. It was submitted on behalf of the Defendants that the Defendants’/Applicants’ Counsel uses only one email address namely; edomon@hotmail.com and that that is email address supplied by them via the Memorandum of Appearance filed herein for use in these proceedings.
5. The Respondent on the other hand contended that the matter proceeded to hearing ex parte only after the court had ascertained that the Respondent had been properly served with hearing notice but failed to attend court. To the Replying Affidavit, the Respondent annexed a copy of affidavit of service and email print out and a copy of the hearing notice to demonstrate service. The Affidavit of Service was sworn by Rodney O Oluoch on April 25, 2022 that on January 24, 2022 at 1830hours, the deponent sent an email to the firm of Mongeri Kinyanjui & Company Advocate, the advocates representing the Defendants with a notice for hearing of the matter on April 26, 2022. The email print out shows that the same was sent to mongerikinyanjuiadvocates@yahoo.com on January 24, 2022 at 1830hrs. The deponent stated that it was the same email address the Respondent had used on various occasions to serve process upon the Defendants’ Counsel and demonstrated this by the annextures to the Replying Affidavit.
6. I have perused the pleadings filed by the Defendants herein prior to the proceedings sought to be set aside. I note that the Defendants’ advocate email address is indicated only in the Memorandum of Appearance. The email address indicated is edomon@hotmail.com. It is not clear how the Plaintiff’s Counsel obtained the other email address namely mongerikinyanjuiadvocates@yahoo.com to use. Though receipt of processes previously served on this email address is not denied by the applicant, the officially provided e mail address is the one in the pleadings filed in court. There is no explanation why the email provided in the memorandum of appearance was not used.
7. The law gives the court discretion to set aside its orders under O.12 Rule 7 where a matter has proceeded in the absence of a party. The court may on an application set aside or vary a consequent judgment or order. Case law has held that the discretion must be excused judiciously.
8. I have considered the application, reply thereto and the submissions made. I find that justice will be served if the Defendant is given a chance to present their defence and counter claim. The Respondent can be compensated by an award of costs considering that the suit had proceeded, evidence taken, both Plaintiff and defence case closed and submissions drawn and filed. The application has merit and the same is allowed on the following terms;a.The order made on April 26, 2022 closing the Plaintiff’s case is hereby set aside.The order made on April 26, 2022 closing the Defence case is hereby set aside.All witnesses who testified on behalf of Plaintiff be recalled for cross-examination by the defence.d.Defendant is at liberty to prosecute its case.e.Thrown away costs of Kshs 20,000 to the Plaintiff.
Orders accordingly
RULING DATED AND SIGNED AT KISUMU, DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM.E. ASATIJUDGE.In the presence of:Maureen: Court Assistant.Mwalo Advocate for the Plaintiff/RespondentMong’eri Advocate for the Defendants/Applicants