[2002] KEHC 906 (KLR)
The court found that the summons to enter appearance had been properly served and accepted by the defendant, and that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in making the application to set aside the default judgment. The defendant had not raised the issue of the correct amount until six years after the suit was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2002] KEHC 906 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jubilee Hardwares Limited; Defendant: Hans Koschany
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 352 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and for Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Delay in Application, Execution of Decree
- 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
Jubilee Hardwares Limited
Plaintiff
Hans Koschany
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment and for Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the default judgment entered against the defendant should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the defendant has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay in making the application.
- 3 Whether the defendant's draft defence raises triable issues.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the summons to enter appearance had been properly served and accepted by the defendant, and that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in making the application to set aside the default judgment. The defendant had not raised the issue of the correct amount until six years after the suit was filed, and no counterclaim was included in the draft defence. The court determined that the defendant's actions did not demonstrate bona fides, as he ceased payments in April 1999 and took no action until October 2000. The court concluded that the grounds advanced by the defendant lacked merit and that paying his debts did not constitute irreparable loss. Accordingly, the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
- No stay of execution is granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
HGB REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO. 352 OF 1996
JUBILEE HARDWARES LIMITED …………......………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HANS KOSCHANY ……………………………………… DEFENDANT
RULING
The plaint in this suit was filed on 28. 6.1996. Summons to enter appearance was served on l0. 7.96 and signed for by the defendant at 9. 45 a.m. on that day. An affidavit of service was filed on 28. 8.96. On the same day the plaintiff applied for judgment in default for the sum of Shs.577,126/= and this being a liquidated sum it was final judgment for failure to enter appearance. Decree was formalized and sealed by the court. By the l999 the decree had been reduced by part payment in the sum of Shs.200,000/=. The first application for execution dated 9. 2.1998 was returned unexecuted for reason given that the applicant had closed business.The second application for execution shows an outstanding amount in the sum of Shs.346,431/75. On issue of this second execution Notice of Appointment of advocate was filed by Tindika & Company Advocates who on 6. l0. 2000 filed this application seeking to set aside default judgment obtained as stated above and alternatively refund of Shs.65,0l7/75 excess payment to the plaintiff and that unconditional leave to defend be granted on the amount denied in the draft defence. The first ground in support of affidavit is that the principal sum should be Shs.477,126/= and not Shs.577,126/= a difference of Shs.l00,000/=.Of this ground I find there is correspondence before action which indicates the sum to be Shs.577,126/= and at no time did the defendant raise the issue of correct figure. Instead he was moving on the footing that the plaintiff’s claim was Shs.577,126/=. See his own letter exhibit HK6.
Secondly that the said defence has triable issues. I have perused the statement of draft defence. There is an admission of shs.477,l26/= in respect of goods sold and delivered but not Shs.577,126/= as prayed in the plaint. This is the only substantial item in that document which is dated 24th September l999. It is not clear why the counter claim was not filed at that time.
Of ground numbered 3 the applicant failed to enter appearance and to file defence because he said he honestly believed the amount in dispute would be agreed upon which was obvious from the statement. My observation is that the applicant did nothing to pursue such a dispute for a very long time and he had no reason to think the matter would be agreed upon. He should have obeyed the court summons to enter appearance.
Regarding ground 4 it is said that if orders granted no prejudice will be suffered by the plaintiff but the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss. This application is opposed by the plaintiff who submitted that the applicants are guilty of delay in seeking orders. And that by now balance outstanding is Shs.201,954/= as at 20. 6.2002 as laid out under para. 13 of Replying Affidavit.Also that the applicant has not raised as counter claim in his defence proposed.
Also that it is now 6 years since the suit was filed and it is only now the dispute is brought up. Since November l998 no payment has been made towards liquidation of balance of decree.
I have considered the arguments of both parties I find that the summons to enter appearance having been properly served and accepted by defendant, there has been inordinate delay in making this application. T The issue of the correct amount has never been raised by applicant until now after 6 years. I find this ground to be without merit. No counter claim has been raised in the proposed defence. Of course the applicant can always file a fresh suit on the counter claim.I also find that the defendant does not show bona fides. He stopped payments in April l999 when the balance was Shs.123,963. 05 as shown in the replying affidavit. The applicant did not take any action from April l999 to October 2000 when he filed this application. By now the balance has risen to Shs.201,954/60. I also find that by the applicant paying his debts he cannot be said to suffer irreparable loss.
The upshot is that this application has no merit and the same is dismissed with costs.
Dated this 27th day of June 2002.
J. KHAMINWA
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE
Mr. Kagram present
Mr. Tindika present
Mr. Tindika: -
I apply for certified copy of Ruling and proceedings and leave to
appeal.
Court: -
Appeal against order is as of right. No leave required. Proceedings may be supplied on payment.
J. KHAMINWA
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE
Mr. Tindika: -
I apply for stay of execution under Order 41 rule 4.
Court: -
In the circumstances this case I decline to grant stay.
J. KHAMINWA
COMMISSIONER OF ASSIZE