[2017] KEELC 2261 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants were duly served with summons and the plaint but failed to enter appearance or file a defence within the stipulated period. Despite being granted an additional 60 days to respond, they took no action. The court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2261 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Julius Njagi Nkumbaru; Plaintiff: Stanley Kageme Nkumbaru alias Stanley Kagembe Nkumbaru; Plaintiff: Sevelina Gachonoki Nkumbaru; Defendant: Johnson Muthomi Kithure; Defendant: District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer – Meru South; Defendant: District Land Registrar Meru South; Defendant: Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Chuka
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 197 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Enter Judgment in Default of Appearance and Defence
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Default Judgment, Service of Process, Failure to Defend, Land Adjudication, Court Discretion
- 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
Julius Njagi Nkumbaru
Plaintiff
Stanley Kageme Nkumbaru alias Stanley Kagembe Nkumbaru
Plaintiff
Sevelina Gachonoki Nkumbaru
Plaintiff
Johnson Muthomi Kithure
Defendant
District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer – Meru South
Defendant
District Land Registrar Meru South
Defendant
Hon. Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Enter Judgment in Default of Appearance and Defence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to leave to enter judgment against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants for failure to enter appearance and file defence within the stipulated period.
- 2 Whether the defendants were duly served and given adequate opportunity to respond to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants were duly served with summons and the plaint but failed to enter appearance or file a defence within the stipulated period. Despite being granted an additional 60 days to respond, they took no action. The court held that the plaintiffs had satisfied the procedural requirements for entry of judgment in default and that it was fair and just to grant the application. Accordingly, leave was granted to the plaintiffs to enter judgment against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants as prayed in the plaint, with costs to be in the cause.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Leave is granted to the plaintiffs to enter judgment against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants as prayed in the plaint in default of appearance and filing of defence within the stipulated period.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA
CHUKA ELC CASE NO 197 OF 2017
FORMERLY MERU ELC CASE NO. 314 OF 2013
JULIUS NJAGI NKUMBARU………..……….............1ST PLAINTIFF
STANLEY KAGEME NKUMBARU
ALIAS STANLEY KAGEMBE NKUMBARU……....….2ND PLAINTIFF
SEVELINA GACHONOKI NKUMBARU…………......3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JOHNSON MUTHOMI KITHURE…..………........1ST DEFENDANT
DISTRICT LAND ADJUDICATION &
SETTLEMENT OFFICER – MERU SOUTH…......2ND DEFENDANT
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR MERU SOUTH…3RD DEFENDANT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL …………………….4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This application is dated 25th March, 2014 and seeks orders:
1. THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the plaintiff/applicant to enter judgment against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants herein as prayed in the plaint in default of appearance and filing of defence within the stipulated period of time.
2. .THAT costs of the case and interest at the court’s rate be provided for.
2. The application is buttressed by the affidavit of David Maitai Rimita swon on 25th March, 2014 and has the following grounds:
1. THAT the defendants though duly served with summons to enter appearance together with plaint have failed to enter appearance and/or have defaulted in filing defence.
2. THAT the stipulated period of time for filing has lapsed.
3. THAT it is therefore only fair and just that this application be allowed.
3. Despite the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants having been allowed on 1. 9.2016 60 days to respond to the suit and to file apposite documents, they did nothing.
4. In the circumstances, I find it meritorious to allow the application.
5. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to enter judgment against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants as prayed in the plaint in default of appearance and filing of defence within the stipulated period.
6. Costs shall be in the cause.
7. Directions on 9th October, 2017.
8. It is ordered.
Delivered in open court at Chuka this 19th day of July, 2017
in the presence of:
CA: Ndegwa
Rimita for the plaintiffs
P.M. NJOROGE
JUDGE