[2008] KEHC 3113 (KLR)
The court found that the draft defence annexed to the application raised triable issues, thereby constituting a bona fide defence. The court further determined that the plaintiff would not suffer any injustice or prejudice that could not be compensated by costs if the judgment was set aside. In the interest of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 3113 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jimmy Rayani; Defendant: East F. M. Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 347 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Application to set aside default interlocutory judgment allowed.
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Default Judgment, Defamation, Interlocutory Judgment
- 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
Jimmy Rayani
Plaintiff
East F. M. Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the default interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the defendant has demonstrated a bona fide defence with triable issues.
- 3 Whether setting aside the judgment would prejudice the plaintiff in a manner not compensable by costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the draft defence annexed to the application raised triable issues, thereby constituting a bona fide defence. The court further determined that the plaintiff would not suffer any injustice or prejudice that could not be compensated by costs if the judgment was set aside. In the interest of justice, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the default interlocutory judgment to allow both parties to have their case heard on the merits.
Court Disposition
Application to set aside default interlocutory judgment allowed.
Orders
- The default interlocutory judgment entered on 8th June 2007 is set aside with costs to the plaintiff.
- The defendant is ordered to file and serve a defence within ten (10) days from the date of this ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 347 of 2006
JIMMY RAYANI…………………………………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EAST F. M. LIMITED…………………………..DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
By a plaint dated 4th April 2006 and filed in this court the same day, the plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation seeking damages, aggravated and exemplary plus costs of the suit. The defendant on being served with summons entered appearance but failed to file defence.
The plaintiff applied and obtained interlocutory judgment on 8th June 2007 and the suit was to proceed by way of formal proof. The defendant seeks orders to set aside the default interlocutory judgment and that the defendant be granted leave to file its defence and be accorded the opportunity to defend the suit. The application is premised on the ground that the defendant had instructed the firm of Mohamed Madhan & Co. Advocates to enter appearance and file a defence who drew and filed a Memorandum of Appearance but failed to file and serve a statement of defence Mrs Waichugo counsel for the defendant submitted that failure to file a statement of defence was occasioned by the defendant’s previous advocates who entered appearance but failed to file a statement of defence. She further submitted that failure to file a defence was due to oversight and that the defendant has a reasonable defence on the merits.
The application is opposed by the plaintiffs who has filed grounds of opposition Mr. Nagpal counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the interlocutory judgment which was entered against the defendant on 8th June 2007 was a regular judgment and the applicant has shown no valid reason to enable the court to exercise its discretion in its favour.
The judgment which was entered on 8th June 2007 in favour of the respondent was in my view a regular judgment which can however be set aside pursuant to Order IXA Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules which gives the court very wide discretion. There are ample authorities to the effect that notwithstanding the regularity of it the court may set aside an ex parte judgment if a defendant shows he has a reasonable defence on the merits.
The principles to be followed in an application to set aside a judgment were set out in PATEL V. E A CARGO HANDLING SERVICES LTD 1974 E A 75 at p. 76 where Duffus p said:-
“I also agree with this broad statement of the principles to be followed. The main concern of the court is to do justice to the parties and the court will not impose conditions on itself to fetter the wide discretion given to it by the rules. I agree that where there is a regular judgment as is the case here the court will not usually set aside the judgment unless it is satisfied that there is a defence on the merits. In this respect a defence on the merits does not mean, in my view, a defence that must succeed, it means as SHELDON J. put it “a triable issue” that is an issue which raises a prima facie defence and which should go to trial for adjudication.”
In the present case it is upon the court to consider whether there is a defence or as often said “a bona fide defence” which ought to go for trial. In my view a look at the draft defence annexed to this Chamber Summons does raise triable issues. I have also considered whether the plaintiff will if judgment is set aside suffer any injustice or prejudice which cannot be compensated by an award of costs. I have come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of this case, he would not.
All in all, I think this is a case where the interest of justice demand that the default judgment be set aside so that both parties approach the judgment seat with the merits of their respective cases.
The upshot of this matter is that I order the default interlocutory judgment entered herein on 8th June 2007 set aside with costs the plaintiff. I also order that the defendant do file and serve on the plaintiff a defence within ten (10) days from the date of this ruling.
Those are the orders of this court.
Dated at Nairobi this 28th day of February 2008.
J. L. A. OSIEMO
JUDGE