[2015] KEHC 3502 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 3502 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs/applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their non-attendance at the hearing of the application for injunctive relief and for not filing a replying affidavit. The explanation that the court clerk failed to inform counsel was unsupported by any affidavit from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 3502 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joyce Warutui Gichoya; Plaintiff: Teresia Ngima Gichoya; Defendant: Lydia Michere Gichoya; Defendant: James Nyaga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 183(B) of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Injunctive Orders
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
BN Olao
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Injunctive Relief, Non Attendance of Counsel, Judicial Discretion, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Injunctive Relief Non Attendance of Counsel Judicial Discretion Land Disputes

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joyce Warutui Gichoya

Plaintiff

Teresia Ngima Gichoya

Plaintiff

Lydia Michere Gichoya

Defendant

James Nyaga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Injunctive Orders

  1. 1 Whether the ex-parte injunctive orders issued on 8th December 2014 should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs/applicants have provided sufficient grounds for non-attendance and failure to file a replying affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs/applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their non-attendance at the hearing of the application for injunctive relief and for not filing a replying affidavit. The explanation that the court clerk failed to inform counsel was unsupported by any affidavit from the clerk or further details, and no explanation was given for the absence of both counsel and clients despite being duly served. The court held that its discretion to set aside ex-parte orders is not to be exercised in favour of parties who fail to provide good reasons for their default. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex-parte orders was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiffs/applicants' application dated 17th December 2014 is dismissed with costs.
  • Parties are advised to comply with Order II Civil Procedure Rules and prepare the suit for hearing.