[2020] KEELC 3004 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3004 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's advocate was properly served with the hearing notice for 22nd October, 2018, as evidenced by the official stamp of receipt by her firm. The assertion that she was not served was false and known to be untrue at the time of filing the application. The application for review did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3004 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited; Defendant: Sammy Wambua Kyale; Defendant: B.M. Wambua
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 58 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Review of Judgment, Service of Hearing Notice, Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Non Attendance by Advocate
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Judgment Service of Hearing Notice Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Non Attendance by Advocate

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Limited

Plaintiff

Sammy Wambua Kyale

Defendant

B.M. Wambua

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Review and Set Aside Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was properly served with the hearing notice for 22nd October, 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment entered in the absence of the plaintiff's advocate should be set aside and the hearing start de novo.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the threshold for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's advocate was properly served with the hearing notice for 22nd October, 2018, as evidenced by the official stamp of receipt by her firm. The assertion that she was not served was false and known to be untrue at the time of filing the application. The application for review did not meet any of the grounds set out under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no discovery of new evidence, no error apparent on the face of the record, and no sufficient reason provided. The failure to attend court was due to the advocate's own mistake in not diarizing the date, which does not constitute a ground for review. The court emphasized that while...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application dated 14th June, 2019 is dismissed with costs.