[2006] KEHC 2065 (KLR)
The court held that the practice of requiring litigants in Eldoret to serve the Attorney General in Nairobi for civil matters is unfair, expensive, and lacks legal justification. The Attorney General's office in Eldoret is deemed to have the authority to accept service of process for all proceedings. The court found...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 2065 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Keiyo Teachers Cooperative Savings & Credit Society Ltd; Defendant: Andrew Ojal; Defendant: Dishon Ndimuli; Defendant: Hosea Bett; Defendant: Kennedy Tomno
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 56 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Interlocutory Order on Service of Hearing Notice
- Outcome
- Hearing adjourned; directions on proper service of hearing notice issued.
- Judges
- AI Tullu
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Hearing Notice, Court Practice, Representation by Attorney General
- 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
Keiyo Teachers Cooperative Savings & Credit Society Ltd
Plaintiff
Andrew Ojal
Defendant
Dishon Ndimuli
Defendant
Hosea Bett
Defendant
Kennedy Tomno
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Interlocutory Order on Service of Hearing Notice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of hearing notice on the Attorney General at Nairobi instead of Eldoret is sufficient.
- 2 Whether the practice of requiring service on the Attorney General only at Nairobi is legally justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the practice of requiring litigants in Eldoret to serve the Attorney General in Nairobi for civil matters is unfair, expensive, and lacks legal justification. The Attorney General's office in Eldoret is deemed to have the authority to accept service of process for all proceedings. The court found the notice served at Nairobi insufficient and directed that future service be effected at Eldoret, as per the address in the pleadings. The hearing was adjourned to allow proper service.
Court Disposition
Hearing adjourned; directions on proper service of hearing notice issued.
Orders
- Hearing of the matter is stood over to 28th June, 2006 for hearing.
- Plaintiff is directed to serve the Attorney General at Eldoret as per the address in the pleadings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Civil Suit 56 of 2006
KEIYO TEACHERS COOPERATIVESAVINGS & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD:.............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. ANDREW OJAL
2. DISHON NDIMULI
3. HOSEA BETT
4. KENNEDY TOMNO :........................................................................................DEFENDANTS
ORDER
I have considered this application and the non-appearance of the Attorney General in court today. I have noted that they received the hearing notice under protest.
The hearing notice was served on 12th June,2006 at NAIROBI. This gives the A-G only 2 days. This Notice is not sufficient. It is also noted that at the last hearing Mr. Makongo, State counsel was present in court.
I do hereby take out the hearing of this matter and stand it over to 28TH JUNE,2006. for hearing. The plaintiff is directed to serve the Attorney General at Eldoret as the address shown in the pleadings is the Attorney General’s Chambers at Eldoret. I am made to understand that the Attorney General’s chambers at ELDORETusually direct parties in Civil matters to serve the Attorney General at Nairobi. This practice is unacceptable, to this court. The Attorney General has an office in Eldoret as the legal Representative of the Government. The said office is deemed to have the authority to accept process emanating from all types of proceedings. It is quiet unfair, expensive and oppressive for litigants who are tax-payers to incur the extra cost of serving the Attorney General in Civil proceedings in all the way in Nairobi. The litigants in Eldoret have a right to be served by the Attorney General in Eldoret and it is discriminating and prejudicial that service on the Attorney General in Civil matters must be done in Nairobi. In my view, such practice or directive appears not to be backed by any legal provision or justification. The Attorney General’s chambers at Eldoret shall reject or disregard service of process at Eldoret at its own peril.
GIVEN ON THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2006
M. K. IBRAHIM
JUDGE