[2009] KEHC 2155 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants/applicants were not aware that the plaintiff/respondent's application had been fixed for hearing on 5th May, 2009, as the chamber summons served did not bear a hearing date and their advocates were not notified. The averments by the first defendant regarding lack of notice were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 2155 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Church of Christ Registered Trustees; Defendant: Wilmose Kiplagat; Defendant: Samuel Kipruto; Defendant: Caleb Muhando Jairo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 181 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Injunction Orders
- Outcome
- ex parte injunction orders set aside; application to be heard inter partes
- Judges
- A Ali-Aroni
- Legal Topics
- Ex Parte Orders, Injunctions, Service of Process, Review of Orders
- 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 Church of Christ Registered Trustees
Plaintiff
Wilmose Kiplagat
Defendant
Samuel Kipruto
Defendant
Caleb Muhando Jairo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Injunction Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the ex parte injunction orders issued on 5th May, 2009 should be set aside due to lack of notice to the defendants.
- 2 Whether the application for review and discharge of the ex parte orders is defeated by procedural technicalities.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants/applicants were not aware that the plaintiff/respondent's application had been fixed for hearing on 5th May, 2009, as the chamber summons served did not bear a hearing date and their advocates were not notified. The averments by the first defendant regarding lack of notice were not controverted by the plaintiff/respondent. The court held that the application for review and discharge of the ex parte orders should not be defeated by technicalities, and that substantive justice required the orders to be set aside so that the matter could be heard inter partes. Accordingly, the ex parte orders issued on 5th May, 2009 were set aside and the application was...
Court Disposition
ex parte injunction orders set aside; application to be heard inter partes
Orders
- The ex parte orders issued on 5th May, 2009 are set aside.
- The application is to be canvassed inter partes on a date to be agreed upon by the parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE 181 OF 2009
KENYA CHURCH OF CHRISTREGISTERED TRUSTEES .......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
WILMOSE KIPLAGAT & 2 OTHERS .................................................... DEFENDANTS
RULING
Before me for hearing is an application by way of Chamber Summons dated 8th May, 2009 filed by the Applicants/Defendants. The same is brought under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) 1, 2, Rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The same is supported by the affidavit of Wilmose Kiplagat the first Defendant herein.
The application seeks to set aside Exparte injunction orders issued in favour of the applicant as against the Defendants on the 5th of May, 2009, and injunctive orders restraining the Plaintiff from trespassing into or taking over, or dealing with the Defendants’ quite possession of L. R. No. 37/723 (I. R. No.408/70) Birongo square, Nairobi West.
The Plaintiff/Respondent has objected to the application by filing grounds of opposition dated 11th May, 2009. During submissions the Plaintiff/Respondent’s counsel Dr. J. Khaminwa relied on the affidavit in support of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s application dated 1st April, 2009.
On the 5th of May, 2009 Dr. J. Khaminwa counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent appeared before me. There was no representation from the Defendants. There was an affidavit of service filed on the same day by one Mr. Albert Mulindi a process server.
In paragraph 2 & 3 of the said affidavit of service the process server deponed
“2. That one the 23rd day of April, 2009 I received a plaint, summons to enter appearance and Chamber Summons from M/S Khaminwa & Khaminwa advocates with instructions to have the same served upon the Defendants.”
3. That on the same day I proceeded to Nairobi West where the Defendants are members of the same church and operate business, under the name, The New Life Christian Church, I personally effected service uponWilmose Kiplagat,Samuel KiprutoandCaleb MuhandoJairowith copiesof the said documents who acknowledged service by sighing on my copies .........”
The assumption by the court then was that the Chamber summons served bore the hearing date.
The 1st Defendant Wilmose Kiplagat in his affidavit sworn on the 8th May, 2009, in paragraph 5, 6 & 7 depones as follows:-
“4. That I and the other Defendants instructed the firm of Lumumba & Lumumba Advocates on the 30th of April and a memorandum of appearance was filed on the same day .....
5. That we were served with a Chamber Summons application dated 1st April, 2009 and which was not endorsed with a hearing date on the face of it, but nevertheless the Defendants filed a Replying Affidavit on 6th May, 2009.
6. That the Plaintiff/Applicants fixed the application for hearing and failed to notify us on our advocates on record inspite of having notice .............”
The above averment especially 5 & 6 of the said affidavit have not been controverted by the Plaintiff/Applicant. I therefore find as a matter of fact that the Defendants/Applicants were not aware that the Plaintiff/Respondent’s application dated 1st April, 2009 had been fixed for hearing for the 5th of April, 2009.
I now wish to turn to the prayers sought in the applicant’s application, the application has been brought under order XXXIX Rule 1(a) 2 & 4(4) none of the Rules deal with review and/or setting aside of exparte orders. It is however clear from the submissions by counsel and the affidavit in support that the Defendants/Applicants are seeking for review of the court orders. In my considered view, the prayer seeking for the review and discharge of the order ought not be defeated due to technicalities. This is one of the instances where the court ought to apply substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities I wish to be guided by Prafula Enterprises Ltd vs. Norlake Investment Limited and Another, H.C.C.C No. 336 of 1999 where Mwera J sort to apply substantive justice and overlooked procedural defects of the application before him.
I accordingly set aside the ex-parte orders I issued on the 5th of May, 2009 and order that application to be canvassed inter parties on a date to be agreed upon by the parties.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 14th July, 2009.
ALI- ARONI
JUDGE