[2017] KEHC 6448 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to extract and serve the court order of 3/10/2016 on the 3rd and 4th defendants as required. The purported substituted service by post was not sanctioned by the court and therefore invalid. As a result, the 3rd and 4th defendants cannot be blamed for their absence on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6448 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kennedy Nashan Wandiema; Defendant: Janerose Chepkeio Sichei; Defendant: Geofrey Edete Ebusuru; Defendant: Toibert Ngeywa; Defendant: District Land Registrar Bungoma
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 131 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Interlocutory Ruling on Service of Court Order
- Outcome
- Plaintiff directed to serve 3rd and 4th defendants properly; fresh mention date to be taken.
- Judges
- SN Mukunya
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Substituted Service, Compliance With Court Orders, Land Disputes
- 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
Kennedy Nashan Wandiema
Plaintiff
Janerose Chepkeio Sichei
Defendant
Geofrey Edete Ebusuru
Defendant
Toibert Ngeywa
Defendant
District Land Registrar Bungoma
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Interlocutory Ruling on Service of Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff properly served the 3rd and 4th defendants with the court order as directed.
- 2 Whether substituted service by post was valid without court sanction.
- 3 Whether the 3rd and 4th defendants can be blamed for non-attendance due to lack of service.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to extract and serve the court order of 3/10/2016 on the 3rd and 4th defendants as required. The purported substituted service by post was not sanctioned by the court and therefore invalid. As a result, the 3rd and 4th defendants cannot be blamed for their absence on the scheduled dates. The court directed that proper service must be effected in accordance with its previous order before the matter can proceed, and a fresh mention date will be taken after compliance.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff directed to serve 3rd and 4th defendants properly; fresh mention date to be taken.
Orders
- Plaintiff to extract and serve the court order of 3/10/2016 on the 3rd and 4th defendants as previously directed.
- A fresh mention date to be taken after proper service is effected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
LAND & ENVIRONMENT CASE NO. 131 OF 2014
KENNEDY NASHAN WANDIEMA..............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JANEROSE CHEPKEIO SICHEI...................................1ST DEFENDANT
GEOFREY EDETE EBUSURU........................................2ND DEFENDANT
TOIBERT NGEYWA.........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR BUNGOMA....................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
[1]. The order of the Court of 3rd October 2016 was that the Plaintiff was to extract the order of the Court and serve on the 3rd and 4th defendants.
The return of service dated 20/3/2017 and filed by Paul Juma advocate who has the conduct of this case states that he received original copies of Mention Notice dated 13/3/2017 from his firm. He served the same by posting it to the defendants.
This was substituted service not sanctioned by the court. There is absolutely no guarantee that the 3rd and 4th defendants received the copies of the mention stated therein.
Of concern is that the 3rd and 4th defendants were supposed to receive the Court order of 3/10/2016 which was to be extracted by the Plaintiff. No order was extracted and none was served on the 3rd and 4th defendants.
[2]. The 3rd and 4th defendants were therefore no served as ordered by the Court. They cannot be blamed for not coming to court on 17/3/2017 and 22/3/2017. They will have to be served as per the order of the Court. A fresh date shall be taken. When this matter will be mentioned for further orders.
The Plaintiff shall pay Kshs.1,000/= C.A.F. before the next date is taken.
Ruling read in open Court in the presence of Mr. Anwar.
DATED atBUNGOMA this 6th day ofApril, 2017.
S. MUKUNYA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Court Assistant: Gladys
Mr. Anwar for Mr. Juma for Plaintiff
Kraido & Co. Advocates for 1st defendant - Not present
Mr. Onchiri for 2nd and 3rd - Not present
State Counsel - For the 4th defendant - Not present