[2017] KEELC 2318 (KLR)
The court found that the second defendant was aware of the suit and the delay in service of summons was due to ongoing negotiations between the parties. The defendant's advocates received the summons after negotiations collapsed, and the defendant entered appearance and filed a defence. The court held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 2318 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Margaret Wairimu Njuguna Mwaura; Plaintiff: Jeremiah Njuguna Mwaura; Defendant: Kahawa Sukari Limited; Defendant: James Githiga Gachoka
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 312 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Service of Summons, Striking Out Suit, Abuse of Process, Subjudice, Negotiation and Settlement
- 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
Margaret Wairimu Njuguna Mwaura
Plaintiff
Jeremiah Njuguna Mwaura
Plaintiff
Kahawa Sukari Limited
Defendant
James Githiga Gachoka
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit against the second defendant should be struck out for alleged expiry and alteration of summons.
- 2 Whether failure to apply for extension of summons renders the suit fatally defective.
- 3 Whether the application to strike out is an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the second defendant was aware of the suit and the delay in service of summons was due to ongoing negotiations between the parties. The defendant's advocates received the summons after negotiations collapsed, and the defendant entered appearance and filed a defence. The court held that the application to strike out the suit was an afterthought and amounted to an abuse of the court process, especially since the applicant had filed a related suit and was attempting to avoid the issue of subjudice. No evidence was provided to support the allegation of alteration of summons. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application to strike out the suit for want of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application dated 10th October 2013 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MILIMANI
ELC CIVIL SUIT NO. 312 OF 2012
MARGARET WAIRIMU NJUGUNA MWAURA...…..…..1ST PLAINTIFF
JEREMIAH NJUGUNA MWAURA………………......….2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSES
KAHAWA SUKARI LIMITED……....……........……….1ST DEFENDANT
JAMES GITHIGA GACHOKA………….........………..2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The Second Defendant/ Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 10th October 2013 in which he seeks striking out of the Plaintiff’s suit against him with costs. The Application is expressed to be brought under the Provisions of Order 2 Rule 15(1) (b) (c) and (d), Order 5 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Sections 3 and 3 A of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Applicant contends that summons to enter appearance were issued on 5th June 2012 but were not served upon him until 24th June 2013 when the same were forwarded to his advocates offices. The Applicant therefore contends that the summons had expired and that the Respondents altered the summons to read 25th June 2012 with the sole purpose of misleading the Applicant and the court. The Applicant further contends that as there was no application for extension of summons, the Plaintiffs’ suit is therefore fatally defective and ought to be struck out.
3. The Applicant’s application is opposed by the Respondent based on grounds of opposition dated 31st October 2013 and filed in court on the same day.
The Respondents contend that there was no alteration of summons as alleged. That the summons were served upon the Advocates of the Applicant upon collapse of negotiations which were going on. That the Applicant has brought this application as an afterthought after the Respondents opposed the Applicant’s suit in the ELC 834 of 2013 which had been filed in contravention of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. That the Respondents’ claim raises triable issues and further that the suit should not be tied down to procedural/ technicalities.
4. I have carefully considered the Applicant’s Application the Grounds of Opposition by the Respondents as well as submissions by the Applicant. I have looked at the court record which shows that summons to enter appearance were issued on 5th June 2012. The applicant did not annex a copy of the alleged altered summons. What is clear is that summons to enter appearance were forwarded to the Applicant’s Advocates offices vide covering letter of 24th June 2013. The reason why the summons were being sent to the Applicant’s Advocates is clearly indicated in the utter.
5. There had been negotiations between the Applicant’s Advocates and the Advocates of the respondents. The Applicant’s Advocates were aware of the case which had been filed in court that is why summon could not be served pending negotiations.
The Applicant cannot therefore turn round and claim that the summons had expired. The Applicant had not denied that he filed his own case being ELC no. 834 of 2013 against the Respondents. The Applicant has also not denied the fact that the Respondents raised the issue of subjudice in as far as ELC 834 of 2013 relates to the present case
6. The Applicant entered appearance and filed defence on 5th July 2013. It amounts to an abuse of the process of the court for the Applicant to raise the issue of expiry of summons when he is fully aware why the summons which had been picked up for service in time were not served upon him. It is clear that applicant is raising the issue of summons in the hope that this case can be struck out so that he proceeds with ELC 834 of 2013 without the issue of subjudice being raised.
7. I have gone through the cases filed by the Applicant’s Advocates. The cases are clearly distinguishable. In some instances, summons were not served at all as in Nairobi ELC 250 of 2010. There was no need for the Respondents to apply for extension of the summons because the Applicant was aware of their existence and that is why after negotiations failed, the summons were sent to his Advocates who entered appearance and filed defence. This Application is therefore an afterthought. The Applicant has also tried to imagine that there were alterations to the summons. No evidence of such alteration was shown. Nothing would have been easier that the Applicant annexing the alleged altered copy to his Affidavit. I find no merit in the Applicant’s Application which is hereby dismissed with costs the Respondents.
It so ordered.
DATED, SIGNEDandDELIVEREDat NAIROBI on this 31st day of May 2017
E. O OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of parties who were aware of the date and time of delivery of ruling.
Court assistant - Hilda