[2002] KEHC 1148 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 1148 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant failed to file a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition to the plaintiff's application to strike out the defence, as required by Order 50 rule 16 Civil Procedure Rules. This failure indicated no intention to oppose the application, and thus, the court was entitled to hear and determine the application ex parte, regardless of the defendant's counsel's absence. The court further held that the 'without prejudice' letter relied upon by the plaintiff was not part of settlement negotiations but constituted a clear and unequivocal admission of debt, and was therefore admissible as evidence. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated...

Citation
[2002] KEHC 1148 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Geoloy Investments Ltd; Respondent: Behal t/a Krishanbehal & Sons
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
25 June 2002
Case Number
Civil Case 1844 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Admissibility of Without Prejudice Communications, Striking Out Defence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Admissibility of Without Prejudice Communications Striking Out Defence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoloy Investments Ltd

Applicant

Behal t/a Krishanbehal & Sons

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte judgment entered on 17.4.2002 should be set aside under Order 9B rule 8 Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's failure to file a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition justified the ex parte hearing and judgment.
  3. 3 Whether a 'without prejudice' letter can be relied upon as an admission of debt in civil proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant failed to file a replying affidavit or grounds of opposition to the plaintiff's application to strike out the defence, as required by Order 50 rule 16 Civil Procedure Rules. This failure indicated no intention to oppose the application, and thus, the court was entitled to hear and determine the application ex parte, regardless of the defendant's counsel's absence. The court further held that the 'without prejudice' letter relied upon by the plaintiff was not part of settlement negotiations but constituted a clear and unequivocal admission of debt, and was therefore admissible as evidence. The court concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside the ex parte judgment entered on 17.4.2002 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.