[2004] KEHC 134 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 134 (KLR)

The court found that the objectors' application was not properly before the court because it had not been served on the respondents/judgment debtors as required by Order 21 rule 57(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The requirement for service is mandatory unless the court directs otherwise, and no such direction was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] KEHC 134 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Lee Eun Hee; Defendant: Charles Gitonga Gakuu 3 Others; Applicant: Dallago Tours & Safaris Ltd and 2 Others
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 1059 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Objector's Chamber Summons Application
Outcome
application struck out
Legal Topics
Execution of Decree, Objector Proceedings, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Execution of Decree Objector Proceedings Service of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Eun Hee

Plaintiff

Charles Gitonga Gakuu 3 Others

Defendant

Dallago Tours & Safaris Ltd and 2 Others

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Objector's Chamber Summons Application

  1. 1 Whether the objectors' application was properly before the court in light of non-service on the judgment debtors as required by Order 21 rule 57(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the objectors' application was not properly before the court because it had not been served on the respondents/judgment debtors as required by Order 21 rule 57(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The requirement for service is mandatory unless the court directs otherwise, and no such direction was given in this case. As a result, the court declined to consider the merits of the application or the submissions made and struck out the application solely on this technical ground, awarding costs to the plaintiff/decree holder.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application dated 4th December 2003 is struck out with costs to the plaintiff/decree holder.