[2018] KEELC 1110 (KLR)
The court found that the proceedings of 23/10/2018 did not proceed ex parte because the defendant was present in court, was represented by counsel who sought an adjournment, and was given an opportunity to participate, including cross-examining the plaintiff and his witness, which he declined. The absence of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1110 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mansukhlal Jesang Maru; Defendant: Frank Wafula
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 103 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
- Outcome
- Application to set aside proceedings dismissed; liberty granted to defendant to apply for recall of plaintiff and witness for cross-examination.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Ex Parte Proceedings, Adjournment of Hearing, Right to Be Heard
- 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
Mansukhlal Jesang Maru
Plaintiff
Frank Wafula
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proceedings of 23/10/2018 were ex parte and should be set aside.
- 2 Whether the defendant and his counsel were at fault for not participating in the hearing.
- 3 Whether the defendant is entitled to recall the plaintiff and his witness for cross-examination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the proceedings of 23/10/2018 did not proceed ex parte because the defendant was present in court, was represented by counsel who sought an adjournment, and was given an opportunity to participate, including cross-examining the plaintiff and his witness, which he declined. The absence of the main counsel did not render the proceedings ex parte, and there was no sufficient ground to set aside the orders. However, in the interest of justice, the court allowed the defendant liberty to apply orally for the recall of the plaintiff and his witness for cross-examination, after which the defendant could give evidence and call his witnesses if he so chose.
Court Disposition
Application to set aside proceedings dismissed; liberty granted to defendant to apply for recall of plaintiff and witness for cross-examination.
Orders
- The application to set aside the proceedings of 23/10/2018 is declined.
- The defendant is at liberty to apply orally for a recall of the plaintiff and his witness to cross-examine them.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
ELC CASE NO. 103 OF 2008
MANSUKHLAL JESANG MARU....................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FRANK WAFULA............................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The applicant dated 29/10/2018 is by the defendant. It seeks that this court’s orders issued on 23/10/2018 and the “exparte” proceedings together with all consequential orders be set aside and the plaintiff’s case be re-opened and heard on merits.
2. The application is opposed by the plaintiff through grounds of opposition dated 30/10/2018 and filed on the same date. The application is premised on the grounds that the date of 23/10/2018 was taken without consulting the Advocate for the defendant, who had other ”pre-fixed” matters in Eldoret on the same date; that counsel for the defendant was not ready to proceed on that date due to those “pre-fixed” matters; that he therefore instructed a lawyer to hold his brief to adjourn the hearing and to take a convenient date but nevertheless the court proceeded with the hearing of the matter ex-parte in the absence of the defence lawyer and ordered the plaintiff’s case closed. The further ground is that the failure to attend court was not intentional. These grounds are outlined in the supporting affidavit sworn by one Alfred K. Chepkwony on 29/10/2018. Under oath, the deponent who is Counsel for the defendant states that the pre-fixed cases were Eldoret ELRC Nos. 184/17, 133/17 and 251/17. A copy of the counsel’s diary for 23/10/2018 is exhibited as “AKC 1(a), (b), (c)and (d)”.
3. Another supporting affidavit which is not mentioned in the body or foot of the application, sworn by the defendant on 29/10/2018, is attached to the application. It reiterates the grounds at the foot of the application.
4. I have considered the application and the response. Mr. Kiarie’s submission, that is, that the perception that the hearing of the plaintiff’s case proceeded exparte is incorrect, is in my view the right position. Mr. Bororio appeared on behalf of Mr. Chepkwony and sought an adjournment on the date of hearing, only for the court to rule that the hearing would proceed. The defendant himself was in court and when Mr. Bororio who had held brief for his Advocate failed to turn up at 11. 25 am the scheduled time of hearing, the court asked the defendant if he wished to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witness whereupon he declined to do so. That cannot be deemed by any stretch of imagination to be an ex-parte proceeding.
5. A setting aside order would only have been merited had it been proved that the hearing proceeded ex-parte and with no fault on the part of the defendant and his counsel. I would not want to deem any counsel who has been sent to hold brief in a matter as only having authority limited to securing an adjournment, for that indeed presupposes that the application for adjournment will be doubtlessly successful. The court does not take exception to this kind of presumption especially when it relates to matters that rank among the oldest in this station whose backlog this court desires to clear with expedition.
6. I find that an order setting aside the proceedings of 23/10/2018 is therefore not merited. I therefore decline to issue a setting aside order. In lieu thereof I hereby issue an order that the defendant will be at liberty to apply orally for a recall of the plaintiff and his witness to cross examine them after which he will promptly give evidence and call his witnesses in this suit if he so chooses.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered at Kitale on this 31st day of October, 2018.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
31/10/2018- at 9. 40 am
Coram:
Before - Hon. Mwangi Njoroge, Judge
Court Assistant - Picoty
Mr. Nyamu and Mr. Kiarie for plaintiff
N/A for defendant
Defendant present
COURT
Ruling read in open court.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE
31/10/2018