[2008] KEHC 1316 (KLR)
The court found that although the interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant was regular due to proper service and failure to file a defence, the court retains wide discretion under Order IXA Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside such judgments. The court considered the reasons advanced for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1316 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission; Defendant: Eva M. Gaitha
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 2047 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Interlocutory Judgment, Triable Issues, Judicial 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
Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission
Plaintiff
Eva M. Gaitha
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the defendant has provided a reasonable explanation for failure to file a defence in time.
- 3 Whether the draft defence raises triable issues warranting the setting aside of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant was regular due to proper service and failure to file a defence, the court retains wide discretion under Order IXA Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules to set aside such judgments. The court considered the reasons advanced for the failure to file a defence—namely, inadvertent error and misplacement of the file—and determined that these did not amount to deliberate obstruction of justice. Upon reviewing the draft defence, the court was satisfied that it raised triable issues. Therefore, to avoid injustice or hardship, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the interlocutory judgment and granted...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Interlocutory judgment entered on 1st March 2007 is set aside.
- Defendant is granted leave to file a defence.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
ELC Case 2047 of 2007
KENYA ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION………….PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
EVA M. GAITHA………………………......…………….DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
This is an application by the defendant brought under Order IXA Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking orders to set aside interlocutory judgment entered by the Deputy Registrar on 1st March 2007 for having failed to file a defence and the defendant be granted leave to file a defence and that the draft defence annexed to this application be deemed duly filed and serve. The application is premised on the grounds as stated on the body of the Chamber Summons and supported by an affidavit sworn by Kimamo Kuria.
The application is opposed b y the respondent who has filed a replying affidavit giving grounds.
Mr. Kibicho counsel appearing for the defendant concedes that there was proper service of the summons upon the applicant and he entered appearance. But by inadvertent error the file was misplaced and also erroneously omitted from his regular bring ups and hence failure to file the defence. He further submitted that the defendant has a good defence to the plaintiff’s claim as demonstrated by the draft defence annexed to the application.
Mr. Murei Counsel for the applicant in opposing the application submitted that there is no explanation given why the defence was not filed in time and that the negligence on the part of the applicant’s advocate is inexcusable and the defence does not raise triable issues.
As I have said earlier there was proper service and therefore the interlocutory judgment entered by the Deputy Registrar on 1st March 2007 in favour of the respondent was in my view a regular judgment which can however be set aside pursuant to Order IXA Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules which gives the court very wide discretion but the court should exercise its discretion judiciously. In the case of TREE SHADE MOTORS LTD v. D.T. DOBIE CO (K) LTD AND ANOTHER [1995] 1 EA 324 the Court of Appeal had this to say. In exercising its setting aside discretion the trial court should also consider whether the defence on record or draft defence is reasonable and whether it raises triable issues.
The law is well settled that in an application for setting aside ex parte judgment the court must consider not only reasons why the defence was not filed or for that matter why the applicant failed to turn up for the hearing on the hearing date but also whether the applicant has reasonable defence which is usually referred to as whether the defence if filed already or if a draft defence is annexed to the application raises triable issues. Where the litigant has not deliberately sought to obstruct or delay the cause of justice ex parte judgment should be set aside to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence or excusable mistake or error. On perusal of the draft defence annexed to this application I am satisfied that it raises triable issues and I therefore the defendants application is allowed in terms of prayer (ii) (iii) and (iv) of the Chamber Summons dated 12th February 2008.
Delivered and dated at Nairobi this 25th day of July, 2008.
J. L. A. OSIEMO
JUDGE