[2023] KEELC 18203 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 18203 (KLR)

The court found that the defendant was properly served with summons and hearing notices at his known residence and that his advocates had been on record and later ceased acting with the court's leave. The defendant's claim of lack of notice was unsubstantiated, and there was no denial of service at the stated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 18203 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: George Maina Murage; Respondent: Daniel Maina Kiragu
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 238 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Service of Process, Delay and Laches, Leave to Defend, Land Transfer Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Service of Process Delay and Laches Leave to Defend Land Transfer Disputes

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Maina Murage

Applicant

Daniel Maina Kiragu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the ex-parte judgment delivered on May 23, 2018 should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was properly served with court process and hearing notices.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application to set aside judgment was inordinate and unexplained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant was properly served with summons and hearing notices at his known residence and that his advocates had been on record and later ceased acting with the court's leave. The defendant's claim of lack of notice was unsubstantiated, and there was no denial of service at the stated address. The court noted that the defendant had knowledge of the judgment soon after its delivery but failed to act promptly, with the present application being filed four years after judgment. The delay was deemed inordinate and unexplained, and the defendant's conduct was found to be dilatory and aimed at obstructing or delaying justice. Consequently, the court held that the...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated September 19, 2022 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.