[2018] KEELC 3093 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants were properly served with the Originating Summons, both through their advocates and by substituted service via newspaper advertisement, as permitted by the court. The Affidavit of Service on record confirmed this service. The court was satisfied that the defendants had been given...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3093 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Ndua Kioko; Plaintiff: Rabecca Nthenya Ndua; Defendant: Munyo Kioko Kikeu; Defendant: Justine Penina Munyivam
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 459 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Service of Process, Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders
- 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
Joseph Ndua Kioko
Plaintiff
Rabecca Nthenya Ndua
Plaintiff
Munyo Kioko Kikeu
Defendant
Justine Penina Munyivam
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants were properly served with the Originating Summons and given an opportunity to defend the suit.
- 2 Whether the ex parte proceedings should be set aside to allow the defendants to defend the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants were properly served with the Originating Summons, both through their advocates and by substituted service via newspaper advertisement, as permitted by the court. The Affidavit of Service on record confirmed this service. The court was satisfied that the defendants had been given an opportunity to defend the suit but failed to do so. Consequently, there was no sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte proceedings. The application to set aside was therefore dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 14th November, 2017 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 459 OF 1998 (O.S)
JOSEPH NDUA KIOKO............................................1ST PLAINTIFF
RABECCA NTHENYA NDUA.................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUNYAO KIOKO KIKEU....................................1ST DEFENDANT
JUSTINE PENINA MUNYIVAM.........................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 14th November, 2017, the Defendants are seeking for the setting aside of the exparte proceedings and to be allowed to defend the suit.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Applicants were never served with Summons to Enter Appearance and the Originating Summons; that the Applicants were never given a chance to defend the suit and that the Respondents will not be prejudiced if the Application is allowed.
3. In his reply, the 1st Plaintiff deponed that the firm of Manthi Masika and Co. Advocates filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Bernard Munyao on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants; that the Defendants were served with the Originating Summons by way of advertisement and that the Defendants/Applicants were given an opportunity to defend themselves.
4. In his submissions, the Defendant’s/Applicants’ advocate submitted that the Applicants have never instructed the firm of Manthi Masika & Co. Advocates to represent them; that the draft Grounds of Opposition to the Plaintiff`s Originating Summons raises triable issues and that the Application has been made without unreasonable delay. Counsel relied on several authorities which I have considered.
5. The Plaintiffs’/Respondents’ advocate submitted that the Memorandum of Appearance was categorical that the firm of Manthi Masika was appearing for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants and that the Defendants were served with the amended Originating Summons by way of advertisement.
6. The Plaintiffs’ advocate finally submitted that in any event, the Defendants do not live on the suit land and that the Defendants were allocated their respective plots by Katelembo Athiani Muputi Co-operative Society Limited.
7. The two Plaintiffs filed the Originating Summons dated 4th December, 1998 claiming that they have acquired parcels of land number Machakos Town/Block 3/1150 and 1151 by way of adverse possession. The firm of M.Masika & Company Advocates entered appearance on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants on 4th January, 1998. On 3rd December, 2001, the firm of M.Masika & Co. Advocates withdrew from acting for the 1st Defendant. However, they continued acting for 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants.
8. When the Plaintiffs filed an amended Originating Summons on 24th October, 2011, they were allowed to serve the same on the Defendants by way of substituted service, which they did vide the Nation Newspaper of 29th August, 2013. Despite being represented by the firm of M.Masika advocates and being served for a second time by way of advertisement, the Defendants did not defend the suit.
9. On the basis of the Affidavit of Service on record, I am satisfied that the Defendants were duly served with the Originating Summons. For those reasons, I dismiss the Application dated 14th November, 2017 with costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE