[2009] KEHC 1827 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant was represented by counsel at the hearing and that the withdrawal of counsel after refusal of an adjournment did not render the proceedings ex parte. The court relied on established precedent that such circumstances do not entitle the absent party to review or setting aside of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 1827 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lonrho Agribusiness (East Africa) Limited; Defendant: David Kiboit Mitei
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 47 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside or Review Ex Parte Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Ex Parte Orders, Review of Orders, Right to Be Heard, Injunctions, Adjournment, Land Disputes
- 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
Lonrho Agribusiness (East Africa) Limited
Plaintiff
David Kiboit Mitei
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside or Review Ex Parte Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the orders granted on 11th June, 2007 were ex parte and liable to be set aside or reviewed.
- 2 Whether the defendant was denied a right to be heard in the proceedings leading to the orders.
- 3 Whether the appropriate remedy for the defendant was review or appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant was represented by counsel at the hearing and that the withdrawal of counsel after refusal of an adjournment did not render the proceedings ex parte. The court relied on established precedent that such circumstances do not entitle the absent party to review or setting aside of the orders on the ground of being condemned unheard. The appropriate remedy for the defendant was to appeal the orders, not to seek review. Consequently, the application to set aside or review the orders was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The defendant's application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT ELDORET
Civil Case 47 of 2007
LONRHO AGRIBUSINESS
(EAST AFRICA) LIMITED ……....PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
DAVID KIBOIT MITEI …..……….. DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
RULING
Before me is an application by way of Notice of Motion brought by the Defendant under Order XLIV Rule 1 and Order L Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders that pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes there be a stay of ex parte orders given on 11th June, 2007 and issued on 14th June, 2007; that the ex parte orders given on 11th June 2007 be set aside and the application dated 16th March, 2007 be heard de novo and decided on merits; that in the alternative the ex parte orders given on 11th June, 2007 and issued on 14th June, 2007 be reviewed and set aside.
The application is based on the grounds that the Applicant did not get a chance to be heard owing to lack of communication with his former Counsel; that the Applicant was condemned unheard; that the Court issued ex parte orders without the benefit of crucial information to the Applicant; that the ex parte orders issued are too onerous to the Applicant and is not in the best interest of justice; that the Plaintiff in this case ceased to exist and that it is fair and justice that the Applicant be heard.
The application is also supported by an affidavit sworn by the Applicant. This Notice of Motion is opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent who has filed Replying Affidavit.
The facts giving rise to this application briefly may be stated. On 16th March, 2007 the Plaintiff filed an application by way of a Chamber Summons seeking:-
1. Temporary injunctive orders to restrain the Defendant his servants and or agents from trespassing into, entering upon, cultivating, planting, transferring, leasing, encumbering, taking possession and or in any other way whatsoever interfering with land parcel No. PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC) 1851 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes.
2. A temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant, his servants and or agents from trespassing into, entering upon, cultivating, planting, transferring, leasing, encumbering, taking possession and or in any other way whatsoever interfering with land parcel No. PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC) 1851 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
3. An order directing the Defendant to deposit the original title deed and transfer forms for land parcel No. PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC) 1851 into Court pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
The Defendant was duly served with the application together with Summons and Plaint. The Defendant was represented in Court by Counsel on 28th March when the said application came up for hearing for the first time. The Defendant was granted leave to file a Replying Affidavit within fourteen (14) days by the Consent of both parties and the application be scheduled to 22nd May, 2007 for hearing. When the application came up for hearing on 22nd May, 2007 the Defendant/Applicant had not filed any Replying Affidavit or Defence. The Defendant/Applicant sought for an adjournment and the application was opposed by Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent. The Court considered the application for adjournment and dismissed it as lacking merits and ordered the application to proceed and at that stage Counsel for the Defendant walked away.
The hearing proceeded and the Judge delivered the ruling on 11th June, 2007 granting the orders sought. The orders so granted were issued on 14th June, 2007. These were the orders the Defendant applied to have reviewed and set aside and the ground that the same were issued ex parte denying the Defendant an opportunity to be heard.
The Respondent in opposing the application submitted that the orders so granted were not ex parte. The Court was referred to the case of DIN MOHAMED VS. LALJI VISRAM & CO. LTD [1932] EACA 1, in which facts were exactly the same. In that case Counsel for the Defendant applied for adjournment which application was refused by the Court. Counsel then withdrew from the suit and the hearing proceeded and Judgment was entered. Subsequently the Defendant by Notice of Motion sought to set aside the Judgment on the ground that it was a Judgment entered ex parte. “It was held that if Counsel fully instructed, on being refused an adjournment, elects to leave the Court and takes no further part in the case, that fact does not constitute proceedings ex parte.”
In the instant case the parties had agreed to the date of the hearing and the defendant did appear by his advocate duly instructed when the suit was called out for hearing. The fact that the advocate declined to go on when his application for adjournment was refused and walked away, does not in my opinion make the subsequent proceedings in his absence ex parte. On the facts here that was not an ex parte judgment and the remedy of the defendant was to appeal and not to apply for review.
For the reasons above stated, the Defendant’s application is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
DELIVERED AND DATED AT ELDORET THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009.
J. L. A. OSIEMO
JUDGE